iagaed 
bh 
aah 


+ 


He 


= 


= : 


= 


are 


ads 


Satz 
= 
pr STE 


an cri bea Mngt RAM ett te ' iD rater stieete re isgttet eat 
eae oh rH 4 +4 i} y ‘i f 3 VAR 4 ¢ : rier ose 
Faby. +4 ed 
do oi 
* reel a fa a 
| te 


i 
Lp 


es 


= 
co. 


Arabs 
Hates 


rr 
5 


~ > = 
CSPSRae 
=f ad Et 


ban) 
seat 
sr beygs 
ye WENA 
athe ek rere 


ft gaads 
iy RES DE 
a Hes ont : 


rey 


= 


atid i 

Wee aly 

MEG ay 

ee vee Bates 
pied 


= 


ae 
—— 


Mp begt edad 
Oe SER a Mek 
(pa giadd 
4 net a8 sy 


it 


' 
us 
it 

11) 


A] 
eyahtd : 
eee Af yinas ; {PRAT AH ede 
i ; : ay Fi a ree ie “ rege’ Kok my rd ae iy Le 
apa on : rae itor Hite a eeraaebe) : t stata aiat Ci E arp b edt ne nedy 


AP AGY Hegel Bras ae 4% it ; hh ne 
A H Vad ¢ ) nie He) 
Brey ie Aa ao thy F Fauet Hy 
Hi} hte Heras gal Ue Rie 
ies sqsden eee ys bE} 
recheeF re Sine fin iat 5 
ia 

bio Capua Peat ‘ink 
eee ! pad ; thrash i yas 

Bi psseme hel tet } ; 7 } ; i 
ih 


ae ee bt; i Rota rk 
tathacersee f 14 BEN : OM etre? (of aptet i has tas Lp MPa ueaeaeaeattt bs 

PCA ASD AMS Kyo MOUS ie Mee cee Be isa (ans) ‘ satan foactses 
bearer " } ive 4 4 ’ i Sota lets nie Wat besa Tse Aye 3 95 olkdip a Oat 


MAH ies | 
ROS “ye } 


N ; is 4 
wits Bitte Rass Fe errands 


ih 


tr 
nite 


a 
TAS oh oe 
ee aria tit | 
pal tule 


4 
}) 
Pitter tent rere a 
Heb eatn! * Vi as atone 
: rod reve EVP ERE ODED B908 PE Hy dae Fit fe 4, 
Po tiuatitetlnn Pt iris seesdatets Hy i 
beth toaaet nity Bint as . 
" Math weer HAN bibs a : 
f Pere 
» id ¥ i 
jabadeb) L t rY ee bee pened 
ity a ie Waser bay 
ALAN Hi Noriega at Ww 
Si NTAas te 
ah Dshaeed 


eid ue 


atta rH Fe 
he a I - Aes: ee ai } 
wet u f Wiest agany ine Mie : 

Mt Maat been ii a 
Yeoverry Pevrr iit 








VOL. 34 eer REVIEW PUBLICATIONS WHOLE NO. r6gu 


Psychological Monographs 


EDITED BY 


SHEPHERD I. FRANZ, Unvv. or Catir., So. Br. 
HOWARD C. WARREN, Princeton University (Review) 
JOHN B. WATSON, Jouns Hopxins University (J. of Exp. Psych.) 
MADISON BENTLEY, Universiry or Ittrnois (Index) and 
S. W. FERNBERGER, University or PENNSYLVANIA (Bulletin) 


Splitting the Mind: 
An Experimental Study of Normal Men 
BY / 
CHARLES T. BURNETT 
BOWDOIN COLLEGE 


PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW COMPANY 


PRINCETON, N. J. 
AND ALBANY, N. Y. 


Acents: G. E. STECHERT & CO., Lonpon (2 Star Yard, Carey St., W. C.); 
Paris (16, rue de Condé) 





If a dedication to such a monograph were 
in order, this would be inscribed to the chef 
observers of these experiments, 

de ba egy 

Cae Sd we: 

Ae oi dl od bi 
upon whose careful work this book depends, 
and whose abundant help is gratefully ac- 
knowledged. 





1 SY See 





INTRODUCTORY NOTE 


It is somewhat unusual to present full protocols in experiments 
under hypnosis. In the present instance it has seemed justifiable 
on account of the critical nature of the problem whose solution 
is here sought. In drawing conclusions the present experi- 
menter has not wittingly depended on any other data than those 
here spread out in full before the reader. If these do not war- 
rant the conclusion, nothing else will be whisked in surreptitiously 
by way of support. Should he, then, doubt the offered inter- 
pretation, he will have at hand the entire body of data with which 
his preferred interpretation will have to wrestle. 


Audi le 


" 
x td i ifs 
.* : 


; 





ACKNOWLEDGMENT 


The cost of printing this monograph has been defrayed by 
Bowdoin College from a publication fund given by Dwight W. 
Morrow. 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
In 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library — 


httos://archive.org/details/splittingmindexpOOburn 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 
etironological Order'of Experiments... 0.5.05 50405. ix 
een Mr Le ATETOCUCUON «. 1a at Av aia io Mu tecanel aia aes ase nba os 1 
1. The Problem and the Standard of Proof.... 1 
2. Experiments and Methods of the Past....... 5 

6. Special Conditions and Methods of These Ex- 
: DETIMENTS ee uae ae is ae wate |. 9 
Reatard Pere PODALIL VE UX peTIIMents. ccs) tug ead pele Sons os 15 
Pattee Lae Contirmatory? bxperiments.) (hee. a a 74 


Part IV. Check Experiments Mostly without Hypnosis.... 115 


Matte) © <_onciusions.and Comments jak...) oe oo ko 129 


ce rere 


i, t 


AB 
im 
ba | 
} 





CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF EXPERIMENTS 


, 1920 


1920 
1920 
1920 
1920 


, 1920 


1920 
1920 
1920 
1920 
1920 
1920 
1920 
1920 
1920 


Observer 


CH, 


BT tee pe SE FO a oP oo 


2fePCr chess Ratt araas 


tapes EE 
i hae tena cee ed a 


NOTSSOUH ANNO DATO VANOMmmTANAAAANgAAAHAND 


Reference Symbol 


np — 


4+. wW 


ES ER bd > ba bd Dd 


<j 


un 


BDRNANS WHE PMNONAWONSE AS 
Nae 


A yy ata t 
Wy eta eI 





PAR GL 
INTRODUCTION 


1. THE PROBLEM AND THE STANDARD OF PROOF 


By splitting the mind is meant, for the purposes of this study, 
the dissociation of an individual’s mental states into two or more 
groups or systems, that function separately but at the same time. 
It has been common to speak of “ split-off”’ states, a phrase 
which tacitly assumes the superiority in some sense of the system 
from which the splitting has taken place. The problem of the 
existence of the split-off group, as something still psychic and not 
merely neural, has been much to the fore during the last twenty 
years. Morton Prince! first gave to such a persistent psychic 
system the name of co-consciousness. Speaking abstractly, one 
means by this term the fact of two or more mental states or 
systems operating separately in dependence on the one human 
body; or, concretely, any or all of such groups other than the 
“primary ” group, or “ personality.” This last term means, (a) 
the group that controls most of the voluntary muscles, (b) the 
group that controls the muscles of expression for the head, 
(c) the group that includes the most immediately useful memo- 
ries, or (d) some combination of the foregoing. Two facts 
make the continuance of the distinction between “ primary ” and 
“secondary” forced and probably unfruitful, viz., the quantita- 
tive variations in the content of these co-conscious groups as 
well as of the “primary,” and the discovery in mental disease 
that all, even the “ primary,’ were fragments of a whole which 
together they all constituted. This distinction might be revived 
if, in the integration of the fragments into a complete person- 
ality, there be any outstanding group incapable of such integra- 
tion. Such apparently is the group called “ Sally”’ in the case 
of Miss Beauchamp.? 


1 Prince, Morton. The Unconscious, p. 14. 
2 Prince, Morton. The Dissociation of a Personality. 


Z CHARLES T. BURNETT 


The literature in this field seems to be divisible into the 
following parts: 

(a) Attempts to explain major happenings in abnormal 
minds and minor happenings in the normal by the assumption 
of co-consciousness. 

(b) Controversies over the validity of this hypothesis as 
against that of ‘‘ unconscious cerebration.” . 

(c) Experimental demonstration of co-consciousness in ab- 
normal minds. 

(d) Experimental development of means for revealing the 
existence and content of a co-consciousness. 

Of the foregoing (c) occupies of course the fundamental 
position, but must, at every step, be mindful of (b), since the 
existence of consciousness, objectively acknowledged, is always, 
whether for professional experimenter or layman, a matter of 
interpreting observed facts. 

The foregoing classification of literature is convenient for 
comprehending the problem. Published work, of course, now 
and again cuts across this arrangement. 

One need not labor over the thesis that a standard for acknowl- 
edging the existence of consciousness in any concrete instance is 
fundamental to proper experimental investigations under (c). 
In fixing upon such a standard, proper scientific method does not 
seem to demand that one should require of such a standard either 
that it constitute in itself a denial of the thing investigated, and 
so the inquiry abort, nor, in the case of abnormal phenomena, 
require a standard which we neither ask nor need in the normal. 
The proponents of “cerebration”’ seem to fall into the first of 
the foregoing errors. Their interpretation, applying equally well 
to all alleged mental phenomena, normal and abnormal, frequent 
and rare, would, if given its logical scope, negate all objective 
psychic facts whatever. For indeed in all recognized instances 
of embodied, human, mental life we acknowledge cerebration, or 
at least nerve function. We must rather find and employ the 
standard actually current among mankind for distinguishing 
matter and its operations from “conscious fellow creature,” 
unless this current, real standard can be shown to be scientifically 


SPLITTING THE MIND 3 


insufficient. Science must make precise for its own ends this 
standard of the man of the street, which he has gradually 
acquired, not logically derived; which he has easily used in most 
cases, but rarely formulated with ease, if at all. Even in its use 
he is occasionally nonplussed. Mental disease, ouija boards, 
spiritistic phenomena, and the like bring him to a pause. Then 
comes the expert. 

Prince has felt the need of this formulation; and he has 
acknowledged such a standard, in greater part, in the arrange- 
ment of his experiments for the demonstration of co-conscious- 
ness. His reference to it is explicit, though he does not set it 
in the forefront of his exposition. 

This standard must meet two demands: for a criterion of 
consciousness, for a criterion of dissociated consciousness. These 
demands correspond respectively to the questions: Are not the 
phenomena unconscious? If not, are they not the work of the 
one usual consciousness, acknowledged by all of us in every man? 

Conformably to these demands, the standard may be formu- 
lated as follows: 

(1) The hypothetical co-consciousness must reveal itself in 
a given individual by unlearned, noninstinctive adaptation to a 
situation (intelligence test). 

(2) The evidence for (1) must be objective, available at the 
time of its alleged existence, not merely the possible implication 
of a later fact (objective evidence test). 

(3) The adaptation must leave the individual in ignorance of 
that event at the time of it. The evidence for this must be either 
the observer’s own assertion, or the fact that he was at the time 
engaged in something that ordinarily cannot be done without full 
attention; or, best of all, both of these (dissociation test). 

(4) The observer must later report this act of adaptation, 
though meanwhile without access to any source of knowledge 
other than the original occurrence (positive memory test). 

(5) He must be able to recall also the fact of dissociation, 
viz., that at the time it existed he was not aware of it (negative 
memory test). 

(6) No stricter logical demands must be made on the evidence 


4 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


than are actually acceptable and sufficient in dealing with similar 
facts elsewhere in life, especially no demands which, by their 
character, nullify the very possibility of offering any evidence 
(proper proof test). 

Of these several tests (4) and (5) may be omitted without 
really impairing the proof, though their successful application 
gives to the proof a fullness that is an especially satel actor 
confirmation. 

Let me state once more the meaning of this standard in terms 
of a situation and a procedure. 

Give a man a plan for performing a fairly complex mental task. 
At the time of performance—and not till then—give him the data 
on which the plan is to be executed. Let him perform the task. 
At the same time, test his ability to report on what he is doing. 
Then remove him from the situation and give him a chance to 
report it without aid from any source except the original experi- 
ence. If he succeeds in performing the task and later recalls it 
with no outside aid, we may say in effect: The intelligent char- 
acter of the original act is such as we know in ourselves, and 
ordinarily recognize in others, only as a conscious act; and, 
moreover, he must have been conscious then to remember now. 
If, in addition, at the time of performance, he made evident that 
in some sense he was unaware of his act, we have the right to say 
descriptively, that at that time he was in some sense doubly 
conscious, not integratedly conscious; that his mental states 
formed at least two dissociated wholes. 

My contentions are that the standard here formulated is both 
real and scientifically fruitful. If anyone doubts the first of these, 
the mode of opening up the attack is the one usual in an alleged 
matter of fact. If anyone doubts the second contention, he ‘is. 
asked to note the clearness with which, in its'terms, the mass of 
experiences reported in these pages can be interpreted, and the 
fruitful therapeutics following upon its use in the sphere of 
abnormal mental life. 


SPLITTING THE MIND 5 


2. EXPERIMENTS AND METHODS OF THE PAST 

The experimental means for demonstrating co-consciousness 
that have thus been used are hypnosis with automatic writing ; 
automatic writing alone;? the psycho-galvanic reflex;?* free 
association ;> and image-formation.® Of these none but the 
first two seems suitable to furnish independent proof of 
the fact in question, by the standard for proof which has been 
stated above. Conceivably, by use of hypnosis, the memory test 
(Canon 4 above) might be applicable to all, and, in the case of 
hysterical dissociation, even without hypnosis. I am not aware, 
however, that the memory test has actually been applied with any 
of these methods except the first two. The results so far 
obtained, though, by these other methods seem to have confirma- 
tory, rather, than independently probative, force. Those by the 
image-formation method, indeed, are, in their psychic abundance 
and variety, as found, an affair of “ primary ”’ consciousness, and 
only by interpretation are assigned causally to a subconsciousness 
of correspondingly varied content. 

Relying upon our standard of proof, Prince’? has, it seems, 
experimentally demonstrated the existence of co-conscious- 
ness in two abnormal individuals. In addition, Prince and 
Peterson, working with the psycho-galvanic reflex, on one of 
these same individuals who was without conscious emotion, have 
obtained curves like those obtained from normal individuals with 
conscious emotions. They infer, therefore, co-conscious emotion 
in the abnormal case. This experiment has, however, merely 
confirmatory value for proofs otherwise obtained, since, by itself, 


1 Prince, Morton. Experiments to Determine Co-conscious (Subconscious) 
Ideation. J. Abn. Psych., 3 (1908-9), p. 33. 

2 Prince, M. An Experimental Study of the Mechanism of Hallucinations. 
Brit. J. Psych. (Med. Sec.), 2 (1922), p. 165. 

3 Prince, M., anp Peterson, F. Experiments in Psychogalvanic Reaction 
from Co-conscious (Subconscious) Ideas in a Case of Multiple Personality. 
J. Abn. Psych., 3 (1908-9), p. 114. 

4Junc, C. G. On Psycho-physical Relations of the Associative Experi- 
ment. J. Abn. Psych., 1 (1906-7), p. 247. 

3Junc, C. G. The Associative Method. Am. J. Psych., 21 (1910), p. 219. 

6 Martin, L. J. An Experimental Contribution to the Investigation of the 
Subconscious. Psych. Rev., 22 (1915), p. 251. 


6 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


it does not inevitably require a larger hypothesis than that of 
‘unconscious cerebration.” 

Let me here show the probative quality of Prince’s demonstra- 
tion, as I conceive it, since this has an important bearing on 
my own experiments. 

Exe. I. Hysterical subject B A, showing multiple personal- 
ity, of which one personality is called A and the other B. A has 
no knowledge of B, but B is completely aware of A. B hypno- 
tized is called b. B has no recollection of b. B is given the 
problem to calculate the number of seconds by the clock between 
two fixed points in time, which will be shown her when A comes 
again, the answer to be written automatically while A is present. 
A comes and is shown a paper containing the numbers 1.43 and 
3.39 written one above the other at the top of a sheet of foolscap. 
The hand thereupon, wrote thus— 

“1.43 to 3.39 would be two hours less than”’ (sentence unfin- 
ished). 

114 
60 


6840 ” 


A meanwhile was conversing and did not look at the paper while 
the hand wrote. The multiplication, be it observed, is correct, 
though the elapsed minutes were wrongly calculated. 3 

Later B (and b) reported the event. This fact is not stated 
but is properly to be inferred from the author’s statement that 
‘“B and b later explained that when doing a calculation co-con- 
sciously,” etc. (p. 40). A more serious omission in the pub-— 
lished account is the absence of any reference to the question 
whether, meanwhile, B had had access to any other source of 
knowledge of the original event than that event in actual 
process of occurring. Thus the memory part of the standard 
for acknowledging co-consciousness seems not to have been met 
quite scrupulously. Nor did the author state, so far as I see, 


1 Prince, Morton. Experiments to Determine Co-conscious (Subconscious) 
Ideation. J. Abn. Psych., 3 (1908-9), p. 33. 


SPLITTING THE MIND 7 


in this the first crucial experiment he had reported, the evidence 
that A did not know the content of the automatic episode. He 
might reply that it is to be found scattered in abundance through 
reports of similar cases, and is well enough known to investi- 
gators. But in the report of a critical experiment meant to solve 
a much controverted question, nothing logically essential should 
be omitted. Further, the record does not disclose whether in 
this experiment the writing was spontaneous or due to a post- 
hypnotic suggestion, nor to what extent, if at all, hypnosis was 
a feature of the procedure. A possibly meticulous criticism is 
here a compliment to the only crucial experiments in the field 
which I have found in print. 

As to other experiments of this sort made by him, he says: 

“A number of similar experiments in which the calculations 
were written automatically were made. The results were sub- 
stantially the same, the multiplication being always correct, though 
the elapsed minutes were wrong” (p. 40). The author does not 
state whether these were made on the same person or on others. 

Exp. II, on the same individual as Exp. 1: B was taught some 
dozen characters of a system of shorthand invented by the experi- 
menter and never seen before by B A. As soon as these were 
memorized the experimenter changed B to A. The experimenter 
then wrote a brief sentence involving the learned characters and 
showed it to A, “to whom it meant nothing” (p. 40). The 
hand promptly wrote automatically a correct translation. 

Again the author fails to state how he tested the dissociation 
during the writing; and he omits the memory part of the test. 
But conformity to Canons 1-3 of our standard seems to give to 
this experiment, as to the first one recounted, probative force. 

The remaining experiments recorded in Prince’s article, includ- 
ing those on a second abnormal individual (Miss Beauchamp), I 
do not here report, as they do not seem to satisfy the requirements 
of the standard. 

Turning now to Prince’s second article) with its report of 
experiments on a second abnormal individual, we note that his 
purpose was to prove that the origin of certain visual and 


1 See footnote 2, p. 5. 


8 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


auditory hallucinations, experimentally induced, was in subcon- 
scious (co-conscious) psychic states (p. 167). His experimental 
logic is again explicit. “The following procedure was devised: 
(a) to induce experimentally subconscious processes; (b) to 
‘tap’ the subconscious process while in progress and obtain 
physical records of it; (c) if any hallucinations occurred syn- 
chronously to obtain a detailed description of the same; (d) to 
correlate by comparison if possible the imagery of the hallucina-_ 
tion with the ideas expressed in the written record of the: sub- 
conscious process; and (e) to obtain immediate evidence by 
subconscious introspection of the relation, if any, between the ~ 
elements of the subconscious process and the imagery of the 
hallucination and the mechanism of the same” (p. 168). These 
seem to be Canon 2 and, by implication, Canons 3 and 4 of our 
standard. The results of the experiments show that Prince 
obtained from his abnormal subject automatic writing purporting 
to report thoughts and images about data formerly experienced 
by her. Both the alleged mental process and the writing were — 
in fulfillment of a plan imposed by the experimenter. In various 
experiments the plans were severally (a) to write automatically - 
an account of some episode (not further specified) in her life; 
(b) to make up subconsciously and write automatically a story 
based on materials belonging to her one-time secondary person- 
ality; (c) to make up subconsciously and write automatically a 
story on any subject; (d) to write automatically some memory 
of an anxious kind; (e) to gaze into a crystal and write auto- 
matically any subconscious thoughts occurring during the 
crystal visions; (f) to select subconsciously and write auto- 
matically some sentence (not further specified) which was to 
appear thereupon consciously as a verbal auditory hallucination. 

These directions were given without hypnosis and, presumably, 
by word of mouth. Both consciousness and alleged subconscious- 
ness thus knew the plan; but consciousness did not know whether 
or how it was accomplished. These experiments were all success- 
fully carried out; and at the close of those of types (a)-(c) 
above, the observer by request wrote automatically what pur- 
ported to be an introspective account of just preceding subcon- 


SPLITTING THE MIND 9 


scious experiences. The “ intelligent ’ character of the processes 
in question consists in recalling old data, inventing stories, invent- 
ing (or recalling) a sentence, and “ thinking ’—all according to 
plans accepted from the experimenter. 

The successful application of Canons 1-3 in these experiments 
seems to me to offer evidence for co-consciousness so significant 
as to be probative, though the data on which the alleged psychic 
processes operated had all been known previously to the observer. 
Prince’s report implies the successful application of the positive 
memory test (Canon 4), in his report of the content of the script 
and in his express reference to “a carefully worded question- 
naire . . . care being taken to suggest no leads or theories ” 
(p. 187); but as the protocol is not offered for examination we 
cannot form an independent judgment. Moreover, Prince was 
not primarily concerned with the application of Canon 4, but with 
obtaining evidence for subconscious knowledge of a causal 
relation between events in subconsciousness and hallucinations in 
consciousness. 

Here, then, we seem to have a small amount of adequate evi- 
dence, from two abnormal individuals, to prove the existence of 
co-consciousness. Can it be proved from evidence obtained from 
normal individuals? This was the object of my experiments. 
That object is, not to show the permanent existence nor the 
occasional, natural occurrence of co-consciousness in a normal 
individual, but that it can be artificially produced in such a one— 
all this in contrast with the occasional, or possibly permanent, 
natural occurrence in certain abnormal individuals, hitherto alone 
the concern of scientific inquiry. 


3. SpEcIAL ConpITIONS AND METHOD oF THESE EXPERIMENTS 

The problem was brought into the laboratory in a variety of 
ways, each intended to reveal the existence and complexity of 
co-consciousness, if such there be. In all, the experimental 
method adopted was that of hypnosis and automatic writing— 
hypnosis to produce the necessary dissociation, automatic writing 
to furnish a means of communication with any discoverable co- 
consciousness. All the individuals whose experimental results 


10 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


are here recorded—the ‘‘ observers ’’—were able to develop fairly 
deep states of hypnosis. The experiments fell naturally into two 
groups. The first is that of strictly probative experiments— 
those which seem to demonstrate conclusively the artificial pro- 
duction of co-consciousness in normal persons. These experi- 
ments meet the demands of the standard given on an earlier page. 
This required demonstration was yielded by three observers. 
While the reader is referred to the full exposition to come, a 
cursory anticipation may not be amiss to him here. 

A plan of action was given the observer in hypnosis (Hypnotic 
Stage 1 or Hyp. 1). It required for execution data and a special 
treatment of them. The data were often numbers; the treatment 
often that of such mathematical processes as addition, subtrac- 
tion, multiplication, and division; or the performance of a task 
according to the interpretation of data by a code agreed upon. 

The sources of the data were variously contrived to keep them 
unguessable. Sometimes they were given in Hypnotic Stage 1 
(Hyp. 1), e.g., a number, while the remainder was to be found 
in the Interim Stage (1.e., the stage between two hypnoses—Int. ) | 
according to the plan given in Hypnotic Stage 1 (Hyp. 1), e.g., 
the number of shelves in a particular bookcase out of the many 
in the experimenting room. Or the entire data might be given 
in the Interim Stage (Int.)—e.g., numbers written unobtrusively 
on the corners of a sheet of paper which was being used by the ~ 
observer for some task both prescribed and executed during this 
stage (Prince’s Method); or, again, one number might be the 
number of the page which the observer, during the Interim Stage, 
was reading at the moment when some sign was given, and the 
other number might be the number of taps made unobtrusively 
by the experimenter. The possible variations are obviously many, 

The precise treatment to be given by the observer to the data 
was sometimes made to depend on some special character of the 
numbers found, e.g., their color, according, of course, to a code 
given in Hypnotic Stage 1 (Hyp. 1). 

Sometimes a continuous and direct exchange of communica- 
tions could be maintained between the writing hand and the 
experimenter, of the meaning of whose talk, if not the fact of it, 


SPLITTING THE MIND 11 


the observer seemed unaware, ignoring him except as he was 
referred to by the recorder. 

The evidence for the performance was given sometimes by 
automatic writing in the same Interim Stage (Int.) ; sometimes 
vocally, just after the induction of a second hypnosis (Hypnotic 
Stage 2 [Hyp. 2]). 

It will be noted that the psychical functions of perception, con- 
trolled association, and expression are involved in the foregoing 
phenomena. 

Tests in the Interim Stage (Int.) showed ignorance of data, 
plan, and execution; Hypnotic Stage 2 (Hyp. 2), on the con- 
trary, showed full knowledge, when, meanwhile, no source of 
such knowledge, other than the original experience, was open; 
and sometimes this was retained in the Post-hypnotic Stage 
(Post-hyp.). 

Into a second group fall experiments that are confirmatory 
rather than strictly probative, in the matter at issue, viz., co-con- 
sciousness. These were for the greater part planned along the 
foregoing lines and need not be summarized in advance of their 
presentation in detail. Five observers furnished the experimental 
results here—the original three and two others. 

The object of the check experiments was (1) to test capacity 
for performing similar tasks without hypnosis and the dissociation 
effected thereby; and (2) to determine whether, if equal capacity 
were revealed, the hypothesis of a co-consciousness is unnecessary 
to interpret the facts obtained. 

The three chief observers were students taking the second or 
third year of instruction in psychology. The evidence of their 
normality is not in the form of a physician’s certificate; it is that 
of my own observation of their adaptation to life. I have known 
them for three or four years, for most of that time in frequent 
personal contact with them as my students. I have seen them 
in the general life of a small college and in the social life of my 
home. In none of them have I seen any nervous stigmata. 

J. L. B. has a good war record. In college he was a leading 
debater, a member of the ’varsity fencing team, played football, 
engaged in dramatics, and was a leader in his fraternity. He took 


12 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


active part in social life. On graduation he went into business. 
His age at the time of experiment was 21-22. 

G. E. H. was an editor of the college newspaper and was fond 
of social life. He had a keen and scholarly mind, being a mem- 
ber of the Phi Beta Kappa, receiving his degree with a magna, 
and being awarded one of our scholarships for graduate work. 
He is at the time of writing engaged in graduate study in Psy-. 
chology and Philosophy at Harvard University. His age at the 
time of experiment was 19-20. . 

H. W. L. was an editor of the college annual. He took an 
active part in social interests, and engaged in dramatics. He is 
now a student of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University. 
His age at the time of experiment was 21. 

Two other men, first year students in psychology, contributed 
a small amount of confirmatory evidence. P. J. was quarter- 
back on the ’varsity and a member of the musical clubs. His age 
at the time of the experiments was 20. F. W. A. was an editor 
of the college literary magazine and a leading debater. His age 
at the time of the experiment was 20. 

Let these details furnish such objective basis as they can for 
my judgment that these observers were normal. 

These five men were obtained from some eight or ten, who, 
requested that they might be tried out in preliminary tests. No 
one was urged nor even asked to take part; the opportunity was 
made known. Not much time was spent on any one of these 
volunteers, when dissociation was not pretty readily induced, 
except in the case of J. L. B. He was at first refractory but later 
proved to be an excellent observer. 

In the conduct of nearly all the separate experiments three per- 
sons were employed at the same time—the experimenter (E), the 
observer (O), and the recorder (R). No more than one person 
at a time was in hypnosis. The records were made by R in long- 
hand, with some modifications for speed and brevity. 

The instructions given to O in Hypnotic Stage 1 were uttered 
distinctly and slowly, then repeated once in like manner ; and at 
the close of this repetition O was asked, Do you understand? 
He would reply by a nod or a spoken word, usually the latter. 


SPLITTING THE MIND 13 


There was never an occasion to give the directions a third time, 
as O always professed to understand. 

The arrangements for automatic writing occasionally involved 
placing a pencil in the concealed writing hand, but O sometimes 
picked up the pencil without aid. The writing was always badly 
formed, but improved somewhat as the experiments progressed. 
As in ordinary script, m’s were sometimes incompletely formed. 
E had to keep watch to see that the paper was kept under the 
pencil and that later words were not superposed on earlier. Some- 
times on reaching the margin, the hand would shift of its own 
accord. During the moving of the paper, the pencil sometimes 
remained on the paper and sometimes was lifted spontaneously. 
The use of a magnifying glass aided greatly in cases of doubtful 
interpretation, both as to characters written and the sequence of 
words, as the pencil was often not lifted from the paper in passing 
from word to word. A faint mark could many times be detected 
between words written in immediate sequence. FE has tried very 
carefully to be objective in his interpretation of the recorded data. 

The tests for anaesthesia of the concealed writing hand were 
conducted in the following way: O, having closed his eyes, was 
ready, whenever he felt himself touched anywhere, to report the 
fact at once with a “yes.” FE then applied finger or other blunt 
stimulus to hands, arms, thighs, and legs, mixing freely the tests 
of the writing hand and arm with those of other parts. In some 
experiments a sharp stimulus was used for the writing hand, to 
provide new material for discrimination and report on the part 
of the hypothetical co-consciousness. O was never told what 
sort of touch stimulus to expect on any part. After he was once 
prepared to expect the beginning of his test, he was given no 
further warning for any later stage of the same test. He was 
also kept in ignorance as to the correctness of his replies. 

Each observer reported that he felt “ normal,” that is, he was 
in his usual condition of felt well-being, when he undertook a 
given experiment. 

The method of hypnotizing employed was a combination of the 
so-called physical and psychical methods, viz., of eye fixation on 
a bright object, and verbal suggestion, followed, when the eyelids 


14 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


closed heavily, by stroking and continued verbal suggestions. In 
the latter, emphasis was laid on creating a vivid imagination or 
‘picture ”’ of sleep in O’s mind, or of bodily heaviness and muscu- 
lar relaxation. FE insisted also that O maintain deep and regular 
breathing. When hypnosis had been induced, the suggestion was 
always given that O would feel quite fit and ready for the 
remaining duties of the day when awaking; and that no one would | 
be able to hypnotize him against his will. There was never any 
difficulty in terminating hypnosis and almost never any delay in 
accepting the suggestion to waken. O was usually asked after 
an experiment whether he felt all right. He almost invariably 
replied in the affirmative at once. The one or two exceptional 
instances and the nature of the mild discomfort are indicated in 
the reports of experiments. The only instances not there entered 
were of two persons who never yielded results of sufficient value 
to be included. One of these, being somewhat nervous, said, 
shortly after the first attempt to induce hypnosis, that he felt 
faint. Work was at once stopped with him and no further 
attempt ever made by E to resume it. The other person stated 
that his eyes had felt uncomfortable after a previous hypnosis, 
and requested that the eye-fixation factor of induction be omitted. 
E of course acceded at once to the request. 


PARTE tT 
PROBATIVE EXPERIMENTS 


EXPERIMENT 1. 
Jan. 19, 1920, 3:30 p.m. 
Dee Os ON 5 | ned Ot id WA 


Hypnoric Stace 1: 

O was told in hypnosis that E would give him a problem in the addition 
of three numbers, that he would awake on hearing the third number, and 
that he would give the answer at once on being rehypnotized. No amnesic 
suggestion was made. After a repetition of these directions, the numbers 
were given as follows: 27, 97, 82. O awakened at once as directed. 


INTERIM STAGE‘: 

Being set at automatic writing he produced the following. In this repro- 
duction, and in all similar cases hereafter, the vertical lines indicate ends 
-of lines in the original script, and the dots illegible parts. 

Was to+ (Here follows a rude five-pointed star and an irregular crescent- 
shaped figure) add 3 nur 3 numbers |and nd give the | answer when rehy | 
hy(p)notised me they were|The probl| (There is a large indecipherable 
conglomerate traced faintly around the two preceding words. A new sheet 
begins here.) Jf you really wanted me to do it | I can do it but if you | don’t 
I (c)ant. If you would|let me I would . . . why|. . .|why 
(A new sheet begins here.) 97, 27, 82. You said to give you the | answer 
I can’t t tell | you because I know you don’t want (These last two words are 
superposed.) me too|want|I want to do it butI . . .|to and I can do 

. |tf you | told me me| you want . . . If | But I can do it 

E meanwhile talked undisturbedly with O on various subjects irrelevant 
to the experiment. Questioned about his right hand, O was not aware that 
it was doing anything. Anaesthesia of that hand below the wrist developed 
spontaneously after some minutes of writing, as shown by tests with metal 
point and by pinching. When shown this hand, O could immediately feel 
touches upon it. It seemed colder than the left to E; and O rubbed it 
afterward, saying it felt clammy. Being questioned as to what occurred 
in Hypnotic Stage 1, O recalled everything except the specific character of 
the problem. Being asked why he could not, he replied that he did not 
want to, but that he knew from past experience that, if he should try, he 
would fail. . 


Hypnotic STAGE 2: 

After a brief pause O said 206 (correct). 

E: Why did you say that? O: Because you wanted me to give the sum 
‘of some numbers. 

E: What numbers? O: 27, 50 (then, in succession, each after the third 
being meant to supersede the third) 98, 89, 92, 42 (resting on the latter). 


1 All matter in ( ) inserted into the automatic record by the experimenter. 


15 


16 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


E: How did you get the numbers? O: You gave them. 

E: Why hesitate on the third? O: I couldn’t remember what it was.. 

E: What were you doing while sitting at the table? O: Nothing. (Then,. 
after a pause) Writing. 

E: When did you do this sum? O: At the table. 

E: What were you writing? O: Wasn’t writing. (Then after a pause) 
Yes, I was writing—writing the numbers. 

E: What else? O: Telling you why I couldn’t tell you about the writing. 

These answers came with apparent effort. “ bes Viasked) Baws Domit 


want to say what I do,” replied O. 
E: How could you deny that you were aware of writing? O: Paid no 


attention. 

E: When were you doing the problem? O: When we were talking. 

E: How could you? O: Doesn’t seem as if I could, but I was. 

O’s appearance showed marked alteration between forgetfulness any recall, 
with some confusion at times evident. 


Post-HYPNOTIC STAGE: 
O could recall nothing from Hypnotic Stage 2. 


Probative character of this experiment: O performed a task, 
viz., writing intelligently, which, by the usual standards of life, 
involved mental functions. He was, meanwhile, not aware of so 
doing and was, indeed, engaged in carrying on conversation 
undisturbedly on topics disconnected with the task. Later, he 
recalled the details of this performance, though, meanwhile, he 
had had access to no source of information outside himself. 

Associative relations among the several stages and subgroups: 
Hyp. 1 persists in part in the voice-group of Int.; and also in the 
hand-group, with no evidence of incompleteness. The two groups 
show no connection with each other. The voice-group loses 
kinaesthetic and touch sensations from the hand. Whether these 
persist with the hand-group does not appear, except possibly by 
inference. But visual sensations, belonging to the voice-group 
(sight of right hand) bring back the other inhibited sensations of 
that member. The voice group is affected by inhibitions from 
Hyp. 1. Hyp. 2 has not quite recovered from the dissociations 
and inhibitions of Int.; the associations are unstable; but it 
seems, however, largely to include that stage with Hyp. 1. The 
original numbers are still partly inhibited. 

Post-hyp. seems wholly dissociated from Hyp. 1. 

Other pertinent questions about these relations receive no» 
answer in the records of this experiment. 


. 


SPLITTING THE MIND 17 


EXPERIMENT 2. 
Jan. 31, 1920, 4:30 p.m. 
Ora Geta tH. Eis) Gere Be Re ls Bk 


Hypnotic Stace 1: 

Directions to O: You will be given a problem of three numbers. You 
will add the first two and substract from their sum the third number. You 
will awaken on hearing the third number. When you are rehypnotized, 
as soon as you think of the numbers you will lift your hand; and you will 
give the answer as soon as you are able. 

After repetition of these directions in the usual fashion, the following 
numbers were given: 29, 56, 67. O wakened at once and took his place 
at the writing table. 


INTERIM STAGE: 

When questioned O said that he recalled nothing from the preceding stage. 
E began a discussion about dreams. Later he asked O to name the countries 
surrounding the Pacific Ocean. O replied correctly and in some detail, 
naming islands correctly, as well as divisions of Australia and capitals of 
some of them. He discussed primitive peoples and defined anthropology. 
This was all done without signs of effort. Meanwhile his hand wrote as 
follows: . . . I have to add two numbers | which were 29, 67 (An 8 seems 
faintly superposed on the 7.) . . . to take away 67 . . . the (?) 
: ‘was | answer was 18 I am to give the | answer (?) when. I am 
to give you the answer | when I giv (?) rehypnatised (O's spelling) and 
also | when I think of them I am to raise my hand | and give you (end of 
sheet reached). 

The back and fingers of the writing hand were anaesthetic to the sharp 
point of a compass. Questioned about his right hand, O replied, that it was 
on the table, doing nothing, just resting on the table. Being told to think 
about that hand he found it difficult to do so; the writing stopped and the 
anaesthesia disappeared. When told that he had been writing he could 
not recall the act, but said he guessed it had happened. He made clear 
that this was merely an inference on his part. 


Hypnotic StTAcE 2: 

Being put to sleep O almost immediately* raised his hand and _ said 
“eighteen’’ (correct). Asked what he had been doing, he named the topics 
of conversation and said that this was all. Afterward he added that E 
had been touching his arm. (The record here is unfortunately ambiguous. 
Taken strictly, “arm” may mean either the right or left, as undoubtedly 
both were touched, in accordance with E’s usual practice in such tests. This 
singling out of arm instead of leg, which was also included in the test, 
seems to point to some specially felt ground of distinction, such as an 
original anaesthesia might have conferred. Yet in this case “hand” should 
have been specified, as the anaesthesia did not exist above the wrist. The 
fault is evidently that of E in not drawing out further introspection from 
O on this point.) Asked “what else,” he replied “ nothing.” 

Here E observed that O’s right hand was again making writing movements, 
the eyes being closed. The record obtained was the following: which you 
told me to do I am|to do as you told me|to do when I was rehypnotized 
the first | time Badger (the recorder) is not to add these up | While I am 


1It is hard to choose the exact phrase here and in other similar cases, 
because it is difficult to tell the moment when hypnosis has been induced. 


18 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


again (?) | hypnotized . . . and the whole thing is to be done by m(e) | 
(Here the writing runs off the paper as weil as at the beginning of the next 
liries)i) Ypwiee es aAStut) GOL) 0) GOmGe) 


Being questioned O said he was doing nothing. E finding that the writing 
hand was anaesthetic to touch, asked O to think about that hand; whereupon 
the anaesthesia disappeared. Asked again what he was doing, he replied 
“writing”; and that he now knew that E had been touching him but that 
he did not know it at the time, “did not feel it then.” O went on to 
say that the hand was writing the same as before. E: What was that? 
O: About the problem I had to do. Continuing, he said that he already , 
knew the result, but did not know when he did it. (Both of these assertions 
are ambiguous and E can now only speculate on their meaning.) When writ- 
ing he did not know that he was doing so, but does now; could not feel 
touches at the time, but remembers them now. “ The rest of me couldn’t 
feel it.” 

The suggestion was given that on awaking he would remember all about it. 


Post-HYPNOTIC STAGE: 

O feels as though he had been dreaming. Asked to make the attempt to 
recall, he says that he was told to recall, but can’t remember what he was 
to recall. After some difficulty he remembers that he had recalled writing, 
not the act, but that he said he had been writing; also that he had told the 
subject matter, but could not now recall what it was. O remembers that 
E had touched his hand at those times when O, at the time, had said so; 
but at no others. He cannot recall where he was nor the presence of anyone 
except E. He has a slight feeling as though there were some things he 
can’t recall. Now, he begins to forget still more, though he can still remember 
that he was told to recall, and what he has already said (i.e., during 
Post-hyp.), but nothing else. 


Probative character of these results: We find here in the 
Interim Stage the production of seemingly intelligent automatic 
writing, showing correct solution of a simple mathematical prob-_ 
lem (one too complicated to be solved before O awoke from Hyp. 
1, as shown by Check Exp. 1), while O was engaged also in com- 
plex conversation that required careful attention, and while pro- 
fessing to think that the hand, which was in fact writing, was 
merely resting. We find also within Hyp. 2, (1) the production 
of intelligent automatic writing, of which, at first, O professes 
ignorance, as well as of the stimulus applied to the writing hand; 
(2) the later recall of the content of the writing and the stimulus 
of the hand, though meanwhile no information has come to O 
from outside sources. 

Associative relations among the several stages and subgreups: 
In Int. there is dissociation of hand-group from voice-group. 
This is not very stable. When the voice-group “‘ attends to” the 


SPLITTING THE MIND 19 


writing hand (1.e., develops voluntary images ot the hidden 
hand) it recovers the lost sensations, but O finds it hard to do 
this. Hyp. 1 is dissociated from the voice-group but not from 
the hand-group. 

Hyp. 2 is at first, according to all evidence that is free from 
ambiguity, a mere continuance of the inwardly dissociated Int. 
At first, associations with the voice-group appear alone; but the 
persistence of the hand-group appears thus: Hyp. 2 (or as we 
might perhaps now more clearly say), the voice-group of this 
Stage 2, denies further knowledge of the hand-group; but the 
automatic writing appears once more, reporting again correctly the 
matters recorded in the earlier writing. Then comes an increas- 
ing integration of the two groups. The touches on the right 
hand and the contents of the writing are shared. The recovered 
unification is expressed by O in a phrase referring to the previous 
dissociation: “The rest of me couldn’t feel it.” Part of the 
hand-group, viz., that concerned with problem solving, is not 
recovered. 

The associative relations of Hyp. 2 to Hyp. 1 are shown in the 
completion of the task assigned in the latter, and in the continued 
reference to the task in the writing. The vocalized answer to the 
problem and the hand raising are not referred to during the 
remainder of Stage 2, an omission rather surprising in view of 
all that O does report on. Perhaps there was something about 
the act of vocalizing in response to the original suggestion that 
was—shall we say—distasteful, which determined its immediate 
dissociation from the remaining items of this stage. Pertinent 
facts will be adduced on this point from later experiments. Post- 
hyp. shows incomplete and unstable associations with Hyp. 2 and 
none with earlier stages. The suggestion had been given in the 
preceding stage that all would be recalled in this. At first, Hyp. 
2 is recalled vaguely (O feels that he has been dreaming). Then 
(after O has been urged to effort) lost items from the preceding 
stage are recalled (viz., that he had been told to recall something ). 
Then, with further effort, O recalls telling what he had written, 
but cannot recall what its content was. He has a vague feeling of 
yet more unrecalled. Even as he talks he begins to forget again. 


20 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


EXPERIMENT 3. 
April 13, 1920, 2:30 p.m. 


O72 (GEA S. Hess Coven B: Re eel Be 
(This was the second experiment upon this observer at this session.) 


Hypnotic Stace 1: 

Directions to O: You will multiply two numbers. The first is 85. The 
second is the number of shelves in the book-case to the right of the door. 
(This number was 6. O’s eyes were, of course, closed at this time, but 
the book-case was near by and in full view from his chair.) When you 
get the second number you will at once fall into hypnosis, giving the. 
answer as soon as possible, and raising your hand the moment you. begin 
to think of the problem. (These directions were repeated; then) “Do you 
understand? (Affirmative reply.) A copy of Aesop’s Fables, opened, was 
then put into his hands. He was told that, on awakening, he would begin 
at once to read the left-hand page. He was given an amnesic suggestion 
for the events of Hyp. 1. 


INTERIM STAGE: 

Awakened, he began to read at once, well and intelligently. Stopping at 
the end of a page, he was told to finish the fable. 

E: Why did you stop at the bottom of the page? O: I don’t know why. 
I did so naturally. It must have been a post-hypnotic suggestion. (This 
behavior was probably in strict accord with the form of the suggestion, 
although not so intended by E.) 

E: What can you recall from your previous hypnosis? O: Nothing. 

E: Try. O: Nothing. 

O was then tested for suggestibility. Being told that he could not lift 
head, put hand down, open mouth, etc., he did them all. Being told that 
he could not help saying 80 (chosen because of its connection with the 
original suggestion) on seeing O take out a watch, he did not say it; yet 
he resisted with some apparent effort; and he afterward acknowledged that 
he wanted to say it. 

E: Do you recall anything? O: No. 

E: Do you feel perfectly normal? O: Yes. 

E had observed that early in Int. O had turned his shoulder toward the 
book-shelves, in such a way as to exclude them from his immediate field 
of view. So wondering why O was not executing the original suggestion, 
E continued to test O’s suggestibility in several ways, till resistance seemed - 
to require some effort, though it was always successfully made. When 
told he could not move a certain member he would sometimes reply that 
he did not want to. 

O was now told to turn his head; he did so to the left (away from the 
shelves). Noting the obvious reluctance to turn toward the right, E told 
him to turn the head all around. Pausing a moment, O then gave it a 
big twist away round to the left. He was now told directly to move his 
head to the right. He did so with ample motion and speed so great that 
he need not have seen the shelves at all—much more rapidly than in turning 
the other way. Finally, “ Move your head slowly to the right.” He obeyed: 


and 


Hypnotic STAGE 2: 
instantly dropping back into the chair with closed eyes, he raised his hand 


SPLITTING THE MIND 21 


and said 510 (correct). Tests for suggestibility now showed that O was 
in hypnosis. 

E: Why did you lift your hand a few moments ago? O: When was that? 

E: A little while ago. O: Oh yes, I thought of a problem. 

E: What were you doing? O: Doing problem while my hand was raised. 

E: Before that? O: Looking at book-shelves. 

E: Before that? O: Moving hands (referring evidently to the tests for 
suggestibility in Int.). 

E: Why did you move your head to the right so hurriedly at first? 
O: I was afraid to see the book-case. 

E: Why? O: I didn’t know that was why. 

E: (Persists in asking why.) O: On seeing book-case I would go to 
sleep; and I didn’t want to then because I was talking with you. But I 
didn’t know that was why. 


Post-HYPNOTIC STAGE: 

O states that he remembers no events of Hyp. 2 nor the fact of falling 
asleep (1.e., in Stage 2). He resists suggestions easily. Being pressed for 
further recollections, he offers a few vague memories of Int. that feel 
to him indistinct and confused. He remembers talking, as in a dream, and 
is not very sure of even that. He feels as though he had before been 
going through the limb movements he had just been making (i.e., resisting 
by movement the suggestions of motor paralysis). But all these things 
seem less real than, for example, his going to R’s room at the beginning 
of the afternoon. Moving arms, legs and head is all he can recall. 

E: How? O: Slowly. 

E: Remember anything else? O: That is all. 

E: What way did you move your head? O: Both ways. 

E: Did you have control? O: I think I did. 

E: Do you recall anything else you have done this afternoon? O: Yes, 
reading fables. (This was done in the Interim Stage of an earlier experiment 
on this same afternoon and was recalled in the Post-hypnotic Stage of that 
experiment. It is thus not necessary to interpret the present memory as 
a reference to the present experiment.) 

To check up the point as to whether O had known the number of 
shelves in advance of the experiment, E asked him two days later how 
many shelves there were. He replied that he did not know. He stated 
also that he had no memory of having had anything,to do with them in 
hypnosis, though he remembered being told that they had sent him off 
into that state. He did not recall ever having noticed their number before 
the experiment. 


Probative character of this experiment: The evidence for co- 
consciousness consists in the following: O professes in Int. to 
recall nothing from Hyp. 1. His actions, however, are appar- 
ently affected by resistance to the suggestion given in the latter 
stage. In Hyp. 2 he has become aware of the resistance present 
in Int., though he has had no outside information. Telling of it, 
he adds he was not at the time of this occurrence aware of the 


22 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


meaning of his acts, viz., that they were of the nature of 
resistance. 

Associative relations among the several stages and subgroups: 
Hyp. 1 is entirely dissociated from the voice-group of Int., but 
not from the resistance-group, while the latter is dissociated 
wholly from the voice-group. Int. as a whole is in full associative 
relation with Hyp. 2, and so is Hyp. 1, as far as the carrying out: 
of the original suggestion is concerned. From Post-hyp. are 
dissociated both of the preceding hypnotic stages, and there is 
only fragmentary association with Int. 


EXPERIMENT 4. 
April 30, 1920, 3:30 p.m. 


ORE W RIS Bee Gates: Ret Gee aie 
(This experiment immediately followed another upon the same observer. ) 


Hypnotic Stace 1: 

Directions to O: You will add two numbers. The first is 639. When 
I give you the second you will waken at once and write the answer auto- 
matically. You will not remember what I have now said. (Directions 
repeated; then) Do you understand? (Affirmative reply.) The second 
number is 427. (O wakens at once.) 


INTERIM STAGE: 

E: What do you remember? O: About my writing—a lot about the 
writing (referring evidently to experiences in the preceding experiment 
on the same afternoon)—that’s all. 

O seats himself at the table, right hand behind screen. It writes at once 
upon taking up the pencil 1066 (correct), and repeats the number very > 
many times. The second time it appears as 10 followed by a 6 reversed 
(mirror writing), and then two 6’s correctly made. This extensive repetition 
was not a part of the original suggestion so far as E is aware or the 
records indicate. O states that his right hand feels colder and more numb 
than the other. ; 

E: What are you doing? O: Moving the hand, as I usually do when I 
hold a pencil. 

Tests of anaesthesia were negative. The account as given above shows 
that exploration for awareness of the real meaning of the hand movements 
was not as extensive as it properly should have been; but it seems not 
improper to assume, that had O known what he was really doing he 
would have said so in reply to the last question. 


Hypnotic STAGE 2: 

: What were you doing when sitting at the table? O: Writing. 
: What? O: 1066 (correct). 
: What is that? O: The answer to the problem you gave me (correct). 
: When did you perform the problem? O: Don’t know. 
: (After a pause) Can you think now when you performed it? O: No. 


; 


eoResMeoMeoBes 


SPLITTING THE MIND 23 


E: Did you perform it before you sat down in the writing chair? O: Don’t 
know. 

E: Did you perform it before you awoke? O: I woke up when you 
gave me the second number. 

E: Why didn’t you tell me what your hand was writing? O: Didn’t 
know it was writing. 

E: How do you know now? O: Don’t know. (Presumably, in view 
of other statements by O, this was not intended as a denial that he knew 
that he had been writing, but rather as a denial that he knows how he knows.) 

E: Do you know you wrote it? O: Think I did. 

E: Do you recall actually writing it (i.e., the act in process)? O: No. 

Yet he had already stated, without access to information outside himself, 
that he had been writing. This seems to indicate fluctuating associative 
connection between the hand-group of Int. and Hyp. 2. 

E: Are you asleep or awake now? O: Awake. 

E: If awake, why can’t you take your arms off the chair? (O cannot 
lift his arms from the chair.) Can you when awake? O: Yes. 

E: You are going to begin to laugh now. (O does so.) You are laughing 
on one side of your face and weeping on the other. (Not well carried out, 
the weeping effect predominating, but without tears here and below.) 

E: Now are you asleep or awake? O: Don’t know. 

E: How does your present state feel? O: I’m very comfortable. 

E: Why don’t you know whether you are asleep or awake? QO: I thought 
IT was awake. 

E: You will be sad and weep. (O accepts the suggestion.) 

E: Are you comfortable now? O: No. 

E: What are you weeping about? O: I don’t know. 

E: Do you feel comfortable? O: I don’t know. (See reference to this 
in Post-hyp.) 

E: You are not weeping; you're laughing. (O does so.) 

E: Will you tell us the joke? O: I don’t know what it is; I just feel 
good. ; 

E: You are putting this on. O: I’m not. 

E: This is acting, isn’t it? O: No. 

E: You are laughing because your left hand is a humpty-dumpty. 
O: (Laughing more than ever) It feels like an egg. 

He is next told that he can open his eyes, but remain asleep. He is then 
given the suggestion to see a motto over the door. It is not accepted. Being 
told that his hand looks like chalk, he agrees. 


Post-HYPNOTIC STAGE: 

E: What do you remember? O: Weeping. laughing. 

E: What were you laughing at? O: Nothing, as I remember. 

E: Did you feel very much amused? O: Yes—more so than I usually 
do when I laugh. 

Being told to look at the chair-arm, he recalls the humpty-dumpty. He also 
reports that he felt terribly when weeping. 

E: Wasn’t that crying acting? O: No. It seemed as if something terrible 
had happened; and I felt all broken up over it. 

He reports, further, that being asked, while weeping, whether he was 
comfortable, this word did not seem to have any meaning for him. This 
perhaps indicates the depth of his absorption in the suggestion. The fore- 
going account indicates that E did not explore fully for memories of Int. 


24 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


Probative character of this experiment: We have here the 
execution of a mathematical task according to a plan while the 
individual is apparently unaware of so doing. Yet later, without 
information meanwhile from any source outside himself, he 
reports what he has done. 

Associative relations among the several stages and subgroups: 
Hyp. 1 is associated with the hand-group of Int., but not with the 
voice-group. It is also associated with Hyp. 2. There is no 
evidence as to whether it survives in Post-hyp. In Int. the hand- 
group is partly dissociated from the voice-group, 1.e., so far as 
the meaning of the right hand movements is concerned. About 
the reverse relation between these groups there is no evidence. 
Both are associated with Hyp. 2, when they are reunited. The 
latter is associated, in turn, with Post-hyp. 

Comments: (1) The chief experimental defect in the fore- 
going is, perhaps, the failure to explore still further O’s apparent 
unawareness in Int. of the meaning of his right hand movements. 
(2) The ease with which the problem was solved is worth noting. 
The testimony of O implies that it took place during Int., and by - 
the promptness with which he wrote the answer on picking up 
the pencil, the latest limit is set. During that period he was mak- 
ing the usual effective social adjustment to E in the matter of 
question and answer. As to his ability to make such a com- 
plicated adjustment, without the aid of hypnosis, the series of — 
experiments affords no answer—a regrettable omission. (3) The 
kind of resemblance between hypnosis and the normal state is not 
introspectively clear to O, as shown by his change from certainty 
to doubt, while E plied him with suggestions. At first he declares 
himself ‘ awake”; at the last he doesn’t know. (4) Emotions 
of some apparent strength can be aroused in hypnosis, with little 
or no ideational content (representing no definite object toward 
which the emotion is directed). 


EXPERIMENT 5. 
May 4, 1920, 4 p.m. 
Os GHEE: Hi, tome, Cod Riek, Ee 
Hypnotic STAGE 1: 
Directions to O: I am going to give you two numbers. The first is 93. 
The second I will give you on a piece of paper when you waken. If it 


SPLITTING THE MIND 25 


appears in ink of one color, add it to the first number; if in ink of two 
colors, subtract it from the first. (Directions repeated carefully; then) 
Do you understand? (Affirmative reply.) 


INTERIM STAGE: 

E: Can you tell me what has happened? O: I don’t know; I can’t 
remember, 

E: What is the best you can make of this I-don’t-remember? O: I can’t 
make anything of it. I can’t remember because I have nothing to connect 
it with. 

E: Are you willing to make an effort? O: I haven’t anything to put 
any effort on. 

E: Is it like trying to report what is on the fourth street on the right, 
up from the harbor of Canton (taken as an example of matters utterly 
unknown to O)? O: Yes, I have nothing to put any effort on. 

O now takes his place at the table. The writing hand is not anaesthetic. 

E: Do you feel sleepy? O: No. 

E: Do you feel as if there was something on your mind? O: No, I feel 
rather dreamy; I can’t think of many things. 

To O is now shown a card with 57 on it in red and black. 

E: What does it recall? ©O: A card I saw once before with red and 
black numbers on it. 

E: Nothing else? O: No. 

E: Are you telling me the truth? O: Yes. 

E: Does it bother you to have me ask that? O: No. 

O’s writing is now in progress. Tests show that the writing hand is 
anaesthetic. Being given a book. O reads rapidly aloud, while his hand 
makes the figures 36 (correct) over and over again, filling a sheet. 

E: What are you doing with your right hand? O: Nothing. 

O gives an account of the content of his reading. 

Tests for suggestibility show that the head and left hand are completely 
resistant, but that the right hand yields, showing paralysis, movement, and 
inability to stop movement, according to the word of E. O is aware of all 
this. (“That is because my right hand feels differently than it usually does.”) 
E: The sight of that hand will put you to sleep. O falls asleep at once and 
is helped back to the easy chair. 


Hypnotic STAGE 2: 

O tells what he has been talking about, what he wrote, and says that 
the latter was the answer to the problem given him. 

Here a fellow-worker of O in the laboratory, well known to him, comes 
to the door to speak to E. Being questioned about this, O replies that he 
knew some one came, but not who it was. The door was very near O, 
but his eyes were closed. He is well oriented in time, guessing the hour 
within fifteen minutes too early. O is given the suggestion to recall all 
when he awakes. 

E: Did you know I touched your (right) hand? O: I know now you did. 

E: How? O: Because I remember it. 

E: How can you remember now and not have known it then? O: I wasn’t 
thinking of it then. 

E: Were you feeling normal then? O: No, not quite normal. I kept 
thinking of one thing, that is, whatever I was looking at. 

E: Are you asleep or awake now? O: I'll call it asleep. 

E: What is it? O: It is really being asleep. 


26 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


E: Now when you wake up I want you to remember what has taken place. 
Do you think you can do it? Is it an effort to do it? O: Yes. 
E: I want you to tell me what the effort consists in, when you wake up. 
, You will awaken when I rap three times. 


Post-HYPNoTIC STAGE: 

E: Can you remember? O: I suppose so, but I don’t really want to; it’s 
such a hard thing to do. I don’t want to say what it was. It’s hard to say. 
I remember sitting at the table then and writing the number 36 and being 
touched on the hand. 

E: What else do you remember? O: Telling you I didn’t feel quite - 
normal when I sat in the chair. 

E: Now you are going to tell me in what the effort consists. O: First 
in trying to remember and then in trying to say it. 

E: Is it comparable to anything else? O: Like some Gunteniae thing 
you try to forget. 

E: The writing? O: No, the remembering. 

E: The content, or the trying to remember? O: I guess it must be 
trying to remember, not the content. 

E: Is it like learning a lot of Latin verses if you hated to learn the 
Latin and hated to hear it spoken? O: Yes. 

E: Have you ever felt that way before? O: Yes. After I say it, it 
seems to be off my mind, but I wouldn’t want to say it again. 

E: Emotionally, how does it seem to you? O: I dislike to think about it. 

E: Do you know why? O: No. 

E: Have you felt similarly in similar experiences? O: Yes. 

E: Do you now feel different from the way you felt in this chair (the 
one at the table)? O: Now I can think of everything; then I felt sort of 
dreamy. 

E: How did you feel about your right hand (t.e., when it seemed inde- 
pendent of O’s control)? O: I didn’t feel as if it were mine. 

E: Was it hard to think of the whole experience? O: Yes, both the 
chair experience and the writing. 

E: How do you feel now? O: Relieved from the ordeal. I feel better 
when I forget it all. It seems disagreeable when I am awake and remember 
it because it is so inconsistent. 


Probative character of this experiment: O performs a problem 
in subtraction after deciding whether, according to the color code 
agreed upon, the figures call for subtraction or addition, and he 
writes the answer, professing, at the same time, to be unaware 
of it all and of what he had been originally told to do. While 
recording the answer over and over, he is reading a text with such 
understanding as to be able to report on it afterward. Ina later 
stage he recalls both groups of facts, without, meanwhile, having 
received any outside information. 

Associative relations among the several stages and subgroups: 
Hyp. 1 is dissociated from the voice-group of Int., but not from 


SPLITTING THE MIND 27 


the hand-group, nor from Hyp. 2. In Int. the hand-group is 
dissociated from the voice-group (except for a certain area of 
experience which is apparently shared, 1.e., the visual) ; but we 
find no evidence that enables us to assert to what extent, if at all, 
the voice-group is dissociated from the hand-group. Both of 
these are associated with Hyp. 2 and Post-hyp. Hyp. 2 also is 
associated with Post-hyp. 

Comments: The following subsidiary facts, indicated in this 
experiment, are worth bringing together for easy availability: 
(1) Int. was not normal. O felt dreamy, monoideic. (2) The 
right hand was not anaesthetic when tested prior to the writing. 
(3) O explains this anaesthesia by saying, “ I wasn’t thinking of 
it (the touch) then.” ‘I know now you did.” (4) He is not 
quite sure whether to call the hypnotic state one of sleep, but 
finally accepts that characterization. (5) How shall the felt 
difficulties in recalling the events of Int. be regarded? O informs 
us that effort is involved in two things—trying to remember and 
trying to say it, as if it were something unpleasant that one would 
gladly forget. He has felt the same way in other similar experi- 
ments. The form of his report seems to indicate on the one hand 
honesty in his introspection during Int., and on the other the 
discomfort of confusion in logical processes. There is no evi- 
dence of concern lest anyone should think him lying. (6) While 
in hypnosis, and not occupied with the execution of detailed sug- 
gestions, O obtained new sensory material and was oriented in 
time. (7) The dissociation in Int. is clearly pointed out in post- 
hypnotic recall by O’s statement that the writing hand, anaesthetic 
while executing special suggestions, did not feel as if it were his. 


EXPERIMENT 6. 
May 20, 1920, 3:30 p.m. 


Oat. WL: | CA Ce WO 2 Re Ge is,) Et. 


Hypnotic STAGE 1: 

Directions to O: I am going to give you a problem. You are to multiply 
two numbers. The first is the number in the right-hand corner of the 
book page which you are looking at when I ask you to hand me a book. 
The second is the number of taps you hear me make while you are looking 
at the book. The answer you will write automatically without knowing you 
are doing so. (Directions repeated as usual; then) Do you understand? 


28 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


(Affirmative reply.) O then woke according to the suggestion that he would 
do so when asked to sit in another chair. 


INTERIM STAGE: 

E: Do you remember what has been happening? O: I can’t remember 
anything. 

E: What is it like? O: A blank. 

E: Are you asleep or awake? O: Awake, I guess. 

Tests for suggestibility are negative. Being handed an open book of 
Aesop’s Fables, he is asked to look for a page containing three fables. 
While O is searching, E makes three taps and takes the book away (at 
p. 41). By request O then repeats some verses that he knows by heart 
(“ Bowdoin Beata”) and does so easily, without obvious distraction. At the 
same time his right hand is writing over and over again 123 (correct), 
usually in a column, but occasionally in a row. (Five times, scattered through 
a series of thirty-seven, 133 appears instead.) Tests for anaesthesia of 
writing hand are now positive. 

E: What are you doing? O: Nothing. 

E: What do you hear? O: A pencil. (O’s pencil was making a very 
perceptible noise.) 

E: Whose? O: May be George’s (R) pen. 

E: Are you awake or asleep? O: Awake. (O acts very sleepy, but 
refuses motor suggestions. ) 

E: What is your right hand doing? O: Nothing. 

He is then told that he cannot hold his eyes open, and he thereupon 
falls asleep. He returns to the easy chair. 


Hypnotic STAGE 2: 

E: What have you been doing? O: Nothing. 

E: Why didn’t you tell me when you were writing? O: I didn’t know 
I was writing. 

E: Did you hear noise of a pencil? O: Yes. 

E: Why did you say it was George’s pencil? O: Because he was writing. 

E: Did you feel my touches on your hand? O: No. 

E: On your arm? O: Yes. 

E: Did you really not feel them at all on your hand? O: All I felt were 
on my arm. 

E: Do you recall now feeling them on your hand? O: Can’t seem to 
think. 

E: Were you awake or asleep while writing? O: Awake. 

E: How did you feel when I told you you couldn’t do certain things? 
O: Felt sleepy. 

E: Like falling into hypnosis? O: Yes. 

E: What were you writing? O: 123. 

E: What was that? O: Answer to problem. 

E: What was the problem? O: Multiply number on the upper right-hand 
corner of page you handed me by number of taps. 

E: Do you remember any of the fables on that page? O: One about a 
wolf (correct). ° 

E: Were you aware, at the time, of looking for the number of the taps? 
O-8No: i 

E: When did you do the problem? O: \Right after you took the book. 

E: Were you aware of doing the problem? O: No. 


SPLITTING THE MIND 29 


E: Were you thinking of anything else while repeating Bowdoin Beata? 
O: No. I felt sleepy all the time. 

E: More so than usual? O: Yes. 

E: More than you do now? O: Yes. 

E: Can you wake up now if you want to? O: I think so. 

E: Do you have any such difficulty in speaking as George had (referring 
to peculiar features of an earlier experiment reported in this monograph as 
Bscpat ire O. Nav 

E: Yes you do. O: No, I don’t. 

E: Yes you do. 

Here O works his face as if trying to speak, but utters nothing. 

E: You can’t say your name. (O makes an unsuccessful effort.) 

E: Can you recall what it is? (O nods.) 

E: But you can’t say it? (O shakes his head. His right hand moves as 
though writing. Thereupon he is made to sit once more at the table with 
his hand behind the screen. His replies, recorded in the following dialogue, 
were given in writing.) 

E: Why can’t you say it? O: You told me I had the same trouble as 
George. 

E: Can you think how to say it? O: Yes. 

E: How? (O writes his name.) 

B= Can’t you utter it? O: No. 

E: Have you seen anyone with this difficulty before? O: Yes. 


Fea DO PU OM Gk fo. css FL Sass (correct). 
E: Now your difficulty is removed. (O speaks his name, and writing 
stops.) 


E: Can you answer questions now? O: Yes. 

E: Why couldn’t you before? O: Couldn’t speak. 

E: Did you try to? O: Yes. 

E: What prevented it? O: Don’t know. 

E: Do you want to wake up? O: Don’t care. 

E: Are you comfortable? O: Yes. 

E: What are you thinking about? O: Nothing. 

E: How did you get the solution of your problem? O: I heard three 
taps; and as soon as I got the number from the top of the book I multiplied 
them. 

E: As you do ordinarily? O: Yes. 

E: You will start to take your fountain pen from your pocket, and when 
you do, it will waken you. Do you hear any noise now? O: (After a long 
pause, though the sound is easily recognized by the ordinary ear, and O 
is himself musical.) It sounds like music. 

E: Like what instrument? O: (Listening hard.) It sounds like an 
organ (correct). 

O then starts to take out his fountain pen, though he had only a pencil 
in his pocket; and wakens. 


PosT-HYPNOTIC STAGE: 

E: What woke you? O: Your telling me to take a fountain pen out of 
my pocket. That didn’t seem right since I knew I didn’t have one; but the 
more you suggested it, the more I thought I did have one. 

E: What else do you recall? O: Problem. 

E: Can you remember it? O: I think I can. (He states it correctly.) 

E: Do you remember doing the problem? O: No. 


30 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


E: Do you recall anything else about your sitting at the table? O: Feeling 
very sleepy, reciting Bowdoin Beata, nothing else. 

E: Do you remember any automatic writing? O: I think I can—not 
sure. I remember your asking me about it, but I don’t remember doing it. 

E: Do you remember anything else? O: I never felt before as I did 
when I sat at the table (in the Interim Stage). I felt numb, and finally 
awoke; but I could do the things you said I couldn’t. There is something 
else I’d like to say but can’t. Don’t know what it is, but I feel there is 
something there. 

E: Do you feel now the way you did when looking at the book? O: No. 
(Here tests for suggestibility were negative. O went on to say that he 
did not feel comfortable when sitting at the table; he wanted to go back 
to the easy chair.) 

E: Do you recall any difficulty of speech? O: 1 think that’s what I 
wanted to tell you about. As soon as I took a breath to say something, 
it seemed to stop. 

E: Did it bother you? O: Yes, because when I tried to talk my breath 
stopped. It was like trying to talk after you’ve run till you’re out of 
breath. 

E: Did you try to do anything? O: Yes, writing automatically. I didn’t 
like not being able to answer so many questions; and writing relieved my 
mind—to be able to say anything. 

E: Do you remember anything else? O: A band. (Record does not show 
whether this is correct. It is not improbable.) 

E: Do you recall an organ? O: No. 


Probative character of this experiment: O gathers information 
and performs a task according to a plan. Of all this he appears 
to be unaware; and a part of it at least (the writing) is being 
done while he seems to be fully occupied with another task that 
requires attention for its execution and receives enough to make 
its content remembered. O is able later to recall leading features 
of both tasks without resort to any source of information outside 
himself. 

Associative relations among the several stages and subgroups: 
Hyp. 1 is dissociated from the voice-group of Int., but not from 
Hyp. 2. No direct associations with Post-hyp. are apparent. In 
Int. the hand-group is dissociated from the voice-group, but 
reunited in Hyp. 2. The hand-group, however, is dissociated at 
least in part, perhaps wholly, from Post-hyp., but not so the 
voice-group. Hyp. 2, in turn, is in association with Post-hyp. 

Comments: (1) The scope of Hyp. 2 is narrower than with 
G. E. H. The touches on the anaesthetic hand of Int. are not 
recalled, though the writing is not forgotten. (2) The suggested 
dissociation of the speech function does not involve ideas of that 


SPLITTING THE MIND 31 


function (as in the spontaneous case of G. E. H. See Exp. P). 
(3) There seems to be some resistance to the recall of the speech 
failure episode. (4) The recall, in Post-hyp., contrary to the 
rule, is largely spontaneous; that of Int. was due to, or furthered 
by, a suggestion in the preceding stage. (5) The abnormality of 
Int. is shown by sleepiness and yielding to suggestion. (6) 
Anaesthesia of the writing hand to touch is, as usual, spontaneous. 


EXPERIMENT /7. 
May 27, 1920, 2:30 p.m. 
OPRGs HH Bice Carlene eae Wee. 


Hypnotic Stace 1: 

Directions to O: When you awaken I shall have you sit at the automatic- 
writing table. I shall show you a number. If it is in ink of one color, you 
will record for me what happened during the dinner hour; if in two colors, 
you will record the events of the hour just preceding this present one. You 
will be unaware of this (7.e., what E has said) after you waken and while 
you are writing. (Directions repeated; then) Do you understand? 
(Affirmative response. ) 


INTERIM STAGE: 

O takes his seat at the table. 

E: Can you remember anything? O: No. 

E: What does it seem like? O: Like so much time lost. Seems a little 
as though I had been asleep—not much different. I do not feel as I do 
when I awaken in the morning. 

E: Do you feel awake? O: Not as alert as usual. 

His right hand is not anaesthetic. 

He is now shown a paper on which 29 appears in ink of one color. His 
concealed right hand immediately begins to write while he asks: “ What 
is it?” (See his statement in Hyp. 2 that he did not know what it meant.) 

E: What went on last hour? O: I was in the music room taking tests 
(correct). 

E: Did you find them difficult? O: Yes—the rhythm one in particular. 

E: What happened this noon? O: Everything—Junior marching. 

E: What can you tell me about it? O: We marched in Memorial Hall. 
There was not good attendance. 

E: What happened at the house? O: A meeting directly after dinner. 

E: Do these questions remind you of anything? O: No. 

The following writing has been produced meanwhile. 

At about 12:30 I went into the | dining room and sat down to the | table— 


ED Age Oe at my left|. . pO eee hes OE mE Ni SPSak Shs ae 
directly across the | table we had meat and|. . . potato and biscuits 

and | then all the Juniors went over|to Mem Hall after we ha 
(ran off paper) | a meeting around the | fireplace D.......... want (ran oft 


paper) | know about the Steward’ss account | going innto the Hop Com- 


1 All proper names were written in full. 


32 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


mittee|. . . And after the marching | we went over to the House | and’ 
then to the Psych-lab from|the house with L.......... We ica an ene 
(This writing is apparently in accord with the directions given O; the 
accuracy of details cannot be checked up.) 

Tests for anaesthesia of the right hand, at the close of the writing, are 
positive. Movements to be executed by the hand are not accomplished, 
though O thinks he has done them; but he has his left hand under full 
control. With the removal of the pencil from the right hand, feeling 
gradually returns, and full control. 

E: Do you feel awake now? O: More than I did. 

E: Do you connect with anything this beginning of more wakefulness? 
O: No; but I think your asking me so many questions woke me up. 

E: Do you recall anything from hypnosis? O: No. 

Tests of suggestibility are negative. Being shown the paper on which 
was the writing he had just produced, he does not recall having written 
it; nor does it call anything to mind. (The record does not state whether 
O was allowed to read the contents; but it is probable that he had a mere 
cursory glance. For further confirmation that O was unaware of writing, 
see the next experiment of the same afternoon—Exp. 8—and his reference, 
during the Interim Stage, to the present experiment.) 


Hypnotic STAGE 2: 

E: What were you doing at the table? O: Writing what happened this. 
noon (apparently correct). 

E: What did I ask you? O: What I did at noon (correct). 

E: (Apparently in the hope of getting details.) What were you writing? 
O: What I did this noon. 

E: Did two things seem to be going on together? O: Yes, I knew what 
I was writing for a few minutes. 

E: What do you mean? That while talking you knew about your writing? 
Oeuy és. 

E: When precisely were you aware of it? O: When you asked me what 
I was doing. I forgot it immediately after I finished answering. (If O’s 
words be taken verbatim, the record does not show that this question was 
either asked or answered. As O is probably correct in this remembrance, 
such an omission would be serious, since we are unable to compare his 
original answer with his present recollection. If, on the other hand, O’s 
words be given a loose reference, they may refer to the question, “ What 
happened this noon?” In that case O’s answer to the present question and 
a few immediately following mean that when E questioned him about 
events that were also the theme of his writing, he became briefly aware 
that he was indeed writing about them, but directly afterward lost that 
awareness. ) ; 

E: Do you refer to my first question? O: To that and one or two others. 

E: When I asked the question, you thought both of what you were 
writing and what you were saying? O: Yes, when you asked me the 
question about this noon. 

E: Did my questions seem to influence your writing? O: I don’t know. 

(This revelation that the hand-group was united for brief intervals with 
the voice-group—a combination effected, apparently, by the special conditions 
of this experiment—leaves still a tract of the Interim Stage about which 
to draw conclusions for the main purpose of this experiment.) 

E: When did you begin to feel less sleepy? O: After I finished writing. 


SPLITTING THE MIND 33 


E: Do you remember that I asked you that question while you were 
zat the table? O: Yes. 

E: What answer did you make then? O: That I felt less sleepy when 
you asked me so many questions. 

E: Was that a correct answer? O: Not exactly—it seemed correct at 
‘the time; for I didn’t know exactly. 

E: Did the number mean anything to you? O: No. 

E: What do you think of between questions? O: Nothing. 

(Post-hyp. is lacking because a new experiment was begun at once.) 


Probative character of this experiment: O selects a task to be 
.done according to a previously arranged code and executes it, 
while, in some sense, unaware of what he is to do and, at least 
for a part of the execution, unaware that he is doing it. Later 
he recalls what he has done, though meanwhile without informa- 
tion from any source outside himself; and recalls the fact of 
dissociation (see Exp. 8). 

Associative relations among the several stages and subgroups: 
With the aid of suggestion, Hyp. 1 is dissociated from the voice- 
group of Int., but not from the hand-group. There is no evidence 
as to its connection with Hyp. 2. In Int. the hand-group is part 
of the time dissociated from the voice-group and occasionally 
‘reunited with it, on the stimulus of questions that concern common 
areas of fact. Both are united again in Hyp. 2. A suggestion 
in Hyp. 1 is a factor in the stage succeeding Hyp. 2, as shown in 
the second experiment of this date (Exp. 8). 

Comments: (1) While executing a suggestion unconsciously, 
O feels sleepy. This feeling passes off, says O in Hyp. 2, when 
the suggested function is ended; but in Int. he attributes the 
renewed alertness to E’s continued questioning. (2) An impor- 
tant new feature of this experiment is the attempt to discover the 
effect upon the associative relations of the two groups in Int. of 
questions directed to facts known in common to both groups. 
“That effect is to bring about temporary association, but is very 
fleeting. (3) The hand-group has a better access to the noon- 
‘hour events than the voice-group, if fullness of report be the test. 
(4) The force of the inhibitions that keep the groups apart is 
indicated by the fact that when the voice-group has access to a 
‘sight of the written paper, no pertinent memories arise. (5) 
Again we note the lack of thinking, in the hypnotized mind, when 


34 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


left to itself. (6) The delusion of control over the right hand, 
when that system is dissociated, raises the question as to the felt 
signs of voluntary action. (7) The removal of the pencil from 
the writing hand seemed to be sufficient to remove the inhibiting 
impulse that conditioned the dissociation. In what group of 
psychic items was its locus? Does the hand-group “ fend off ”’ 
the voice-group? The latter seems in all these experiments to 
play a relatively passive role. ; 


EXPERIMENT 8. 
May 27, 1920, 3:30 p.m. 


Oi GoRnhy Rae, Sacer Ree Werke 
(This experiment immediately followed another on the same observer.) 


Hypnotic Stace 1: 

(Named so for convenience. It is identical with Hypnotic Stage 2 of 
Experiment 7.) Directions to O: When you waken I shall give- you a 
book to read. If the number of lines in the fable is more than 10 you will 
say Boston automatically; if less than 10 you will say New York auto- 
matically, without knowing you have said it. (Directions repeated; then) 
Do you understand? (Affirmative reply.) 


INTERIM STAGE: 

O recalls nothing that has just been going on. He resists suggestions 
directed to motor control, saying he would rather not lift his arm. He feels: 
sleepy. Being handed the book he reads the fable aloud; and, finishing, 
he immediately says “New York,” a correct fulfilment of the suggestion. 

E: What is the last word you said? O: Pieces (the last word of the 
fable). 

E: What have you just read? (O tells the story correctly.) 

E: Were you doing anything else while reading? O: No. (Later in 
this stage, he contradicts this statement by his written word.) 

E: Are you sleepy? O: No. 

E: Are you more waked up than a while ago? O: Yes. I woke up- 
gradually by reading, I guess. 

E: Do you remember now what you did at the table? O: Yes—talking 
with you and writing about what I did this noon. I did not know I was 
writing. (Experiment 7 is here referred to; and this. bit of evidence is 
referred to in the discussion of the probative value of the earlier experiment.) 

E: What did you say when you finished reading the fable? O: I said’ 
““ pieces.” 

E: Why? O: You asked me what the last word I said was. 

E: Was that the last word? O: Yes. 

O is now directed to sit at the table and, with pencil in his screened 
right hand, is given the opportunity to write, but without verbal suggestion: 
to do so. The hand at once accepts the opportunity. 

E: What was the word you uttered after the fables? O: (Speaks.): 
Pieces; (writes) New York. 


SPLITTING THE MIND 35 


E: What were you thinking about while reading? O: (Speaks.) Nothing 
except about reading the fable; (writes) Counting the lines. 

E: Did you feel that you were giving attention to the case (i.e., the read- 
ing)? O: (Speaks.) Yes. (Writes an illegible scrawl.) 

Tests of right-hand anaesthesia are now positive. During these tests the 
hand is writing the number series from 1 to 14, trailing after that into 
illegibility what may be intended for higher numbers in the series, and 
ending with a word-like scrawl. E gave no intentional suggestion for this 
writing. It may have been the expression of line counting or of the counting 
of touches impressed on his anaesthetic hand, or, indeed, have some other 
meaning. O is now plied with suggestions for sleep, which he does not 
accept. 

E: But you want to, don’t you? O: Yes. 

E: But you don’t intend to? O: Not unless you want me to. 

(It is an error of technique that E did not question O as to whether he 
knew that he was writing and what the contents were. The answers, coupled 
with the proper inquiries and answers of Hypnotic Stage 2, might have made 
this important evidence. ) 


Hypnotic Stace 2: 

(Again, named so for convenience; this is really the third hypnosis in 
sequence. ) 

E: What was the last word you said after reading the paragraph? 

O is silent, even when the question is repeated several times. He is then 
sent to the table and given a chance to write under the usual conditions, 
but without verbal suggestion to do so. The record has no entry as to the 
stimulus used to make O go to the table. It would seem that he must 
have been led; but one queries, of course, whether here, with apparent 
inconsistency, he responded to an auditory stimulus. The answers to the 
following questions, to the end of this stage, were all obtained in writing. 

E: Do you hear me? O: Yes. 

E: Why don’t you reply to me? O: J can’t. 

E: Why not? O: Because I can’t speak. 

E: Do you want to speak? O: I don’t know. I can’t hear what you say to 
do (This word—if this be the one intended—runs partly off the paper) | 
things. . 

E: What do you mean? O: / can’t hear what you say|to do anything 
I can’t hear you. 

By direction of E, R calls O by name. 

E: Do you hear Henry speak? O: Yes, but I don’t. 

E: Don’t what? O: Hear him. 

E: Do you feel my touch on your hand? (Unfortunately the record does 
not show which one was touched; of course, E believes it to have been 
the writing hand.) O: Yes, but I don’t. 

E: Don’t what? O: Feel it. 

E: How can you feel it and not feel it at the same time? O: I don’t 
think I feel it but I do. 

E: Will you try to remember about this when you are wakened? O: Yes. 

E: Do you think it will be hard to remember? O: Yes. I don’t think 
I can. 

E: Why? O: I don’t know. 

E: Let me see you lift your left hand. O: J can’t hear you. 

E: Do you feel comfortable? O: Yes. 


36 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


E: Would you like to be waked up? O: Don’t care. 

E: Are you any more deeply asleep than usual in hypnosis? O: In a 
different way. 

E: How different? O: Don’t know. 

After being given a suggestion that he will be able to recall the experience, 
O is wakened. This takes place without difficulty, and, presumably by the 
usual auditory cue. 

(With regard to the main purpose of this experiment, it is an error in 
technique that, in Hypnotic Stage 2, O was not questioned about the line 
counting, to discover whether he could recall it and whether he felt that, 
at the time of counting, he was unaware of it.. E’s surprise at the turn - 
taken by the experiment is the explanation for this omission. This seems 
to be supplied fortunately by the written statement on this point, obtained 
in the Interim Stage. But for the failure to inquire about this writing 
itself, and thus, if possible, to constitute it further evidence, according to 
our canons, there is no substitute. However, such an excellent case of 
instant, adequate verbal adaptation to the real past will seem to many to 
vouch sufficiently for its psychic character, without further logical prop.) 


Post-HYPNOTIC STAGE: 

E: What do you remember of the past period? O: I don’t remember 
anything; it doesn’t seem like anything to me. 

E: Do you recall anything? O: No. 

E: Are you trying to? O: I don’t see how I can try to recall. 

An interruption occurred at this point (length unspecified in the record) 
after which E resumes hopefully. 

E: Now do you recall anything? O: No (but see below). 

E: Do you want to? O: (Slowly) I don’t know. 

E: What do you recall, then? O:I1 have a general feeling of great 
contusion. ; 

E: Do you recall anything before the last hypnosis? O: No (but his 
next answer shows recovery). 

E: Do you recall anything from the afternoon’s work? O: Yes—about the 
fable—something with pencils (which he sees lying on the table and which 
he says look familiar); but I don’t remember doing anything with them. 

E: What did I show you? O: 29. (Correct, see Exp. 7.) 

E: Anything else—any other paper? O: No—just 29 on it (incorrect). 

E: Any paper with automatic writing on it? O: No (incorrect). 

O’s right hand feels prickly as if asleep and his face numb. “ Feels 
confused, removed by suggestion in hypnosis,” runs the record. 


Probative character of this experiment: While reading a fable 
so attentively that he is able afterward to give the story correctly, 
O, having forgotten what he was told to do, is counting the 
number of lines in the fable, interpreting the result by a code 
already known to E, and expressing the meaning by two spoken 
words—of all of which he is unaware immediately afterwards. 
Later, he recalls the counting and the words as spoken, without 
access meanwhile to any source of information outside himself. 


SPLITTING THE MIND 37 


In the foregoing, the only weakness, according to our accepted 
canons of proof, is the absence of a test for awareness, while the 
alleged co-conscious process was im operation. 

Associative relations among the several stages and subgroups: 
Hyp. 1 is not associated with the reading-group of Int., and there 
is no evidence that it is associated with the (hypothetical) prob- 
lem-group, though of course the latter has been causally deter- 
mined by it. There is, again, no evidence as to its association 
with Hyp. 2, but positive evidence that it is dissociated from Post- 
hyp. The problem-group is apparently dissociated from the 
reading-group, and there is no evidence as to its association with 
Hyp. 2 or later integration with the reading-group. It is entirely 
dissociated with Post-hyp., unless “‘ something with pencils’ be 
a vague reference to it. There is no evidence as to whether the 
reading-group is associated with Hyp. 2, but for its association 
with Post-hyp. the evidence is positive, although O forgets one 
fact, viz., being shown the paper containing his writing. 

Comments: (1) The auditory disconnection, apparently com- 
plete except for the waking-cue and, possibly, the stimulus that 
sent him to the table, is the new fact of interest. It is more 
inclusive than in the other experiment of May 27, 1920 (Exp. 7). 
Then O could not think how to speak; now he cannot hear. 
Unfortunately no attempt was made, in the present experiment, 
to discover whether O could vocally answer visually presented 
questions, or hear other sounds besides speech. So we do not 
know whether merely speech from auditory cues, or perhaps all 
sounds, too, were inhibited; or the vocal apparatus also. The 
latter, if inhibited, was not carrying on separate activity, whereas 
the hearing-of-speech function was evidently so doing.. This 
coupled with the writing has the appearance of being both psychic 
and co-conscious, and its scope of knowledge resembles that of 
the usual Hyp. 2, in which O communicates by speech. All the 
mind-expressing organs of the body except the writing-hand seem 
to have been in the service of an unusually limited psychic-group. 
Perhaps it was felt as a dreamy, negative state. The external 
appearance of O would indicate that as much as anything. But 
one glimpse into its content is in its accessibility to the auditory 


38 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


cue of waking and, possibly, to an auditory one for going to the 
table. The writing-hand insists on the fact of co-consciousness— 
that he hears but he doesn’t, that he feels touches but he doesn’t— 
and in conjunction with evidence from other experiments this is 
of great importance. But, by themselves, the facts of this inter- 
esting Hypnotic State 2 do not conform sufficiently to our canons 
to be accepted as evidence. These flatly contradictory statements 
of O indicate that the stage in which he makes them is broad ~ 
enough to include two states, otherwise dissociated, whose pecu- 
liarities, as dissociated states, are, nevertheless, known all together 
in this stage. (2) In Int. O’s sleepiness seems to be curiously 
on the verge of suggestibility. He resists, yet wants to go to 
sleep, but he declares he won't, unless E wishes it. (3) The 
automatic writing occurred without verbal suggestion; but to 
place a susceptible person in position for writing is probably to 
give him a pretty definite visual-tactual-kinesthetic suggestion. 
(4) The dissociation of Hyp. 2 from Post-hyp. despite a definite 
suggestion that it be remembered, is noteworthy. This dissocia- 
tion is nearly complete—everything gone but a “ general feeling 
of great confusion.” When told that he was to remember, he 
expressed serious doubt of his ability to do so, without knowing 
why it should be so difficult, but adding that he was asleep in a 
different way than what was usual for him in hypnosis. He was 
unable to characterize this difference. That this dissociation was 
in some sense motivated is hinted by his statement that he does 
not know whether he wants to recall the forgotten experiences. 
The problem of motivation versus passive disconnection is here 
opened up for all hypnotic dissociation. (5) The bodily mem- 
bers connected with the dissociated experiences—right hand and 
face—show an altered sensory state; the hand is now anaesthetic, 
now prickly; the face is numb. (6) When O in Int. declared 
that he felt he had been giving attention to the reading, the hand 
is apparently moved to some sort of resistance or modification of 
statement; but in its turn is subject to some inhibition that 
reduces the writing to an illegible scrawl. 


SPLITTING THE MIND 39 


EXPERIMENT 9. 


(Three experiments in one.) 
April 26, 1921, 2 p.m. 


OF GYEAH. Priel ae: Roce Ds 


The experiments here reported formed a part of a larger one designed 
to determine the means by which a hypnotized person could pick out, with 
almost infallible certainty, one sheet of blank paper from many other 
similarly blank sheets as the one on which he had previously seen a 
(suggested) portrait. It is included here because it seems, incidentally, to 
furnish evidence for coconsciousness. 


Hypnotic Stace 1: 

E speaks: I am going to show you a card. On that card you will find 
a picture of Abraham Lincoln. Have you ever seen a picture of him? 
(O says “yes.”) You will be able to open your eyes and still stay quite 
asleep. 

A blank oblong of light blue cardboard, about two and one-half inches 
by four inches, was put into O’s hands, his eyes being open. This card he 
had been unable to distinguish from other similar cards outside hypnosis. 

E: Can you see the face? O: Yes. 

E: Describe it. O: Side whiskers—looking straight at me. 

E: How much of him is represented? O: Just the head and shoulders. 

E: How do the eyes look? O: Looking straight at me—usual picture. 

O then closed his eyes, while the card was inserted as one of a pack of 
ten similar cards, about seventh from top and right side up, behind O’s 
back. The pack was handed to him, with directions to pick out the picture 
he had just seen. In one and two-thirds minutes, O said that he did not 
see it. Being asked whether he was deeply asleep, he nodded his head; 
and tests showed him to be fully suggestible. 

He was then handed the same card as before, and was told that it was 
a picture of Washington. 

E: Describe it. O: He has on a powdered wig; is looking a little to 
the right—a full-length portrait. He has on a Revolutionary coat and sword, 
buff colored trousers which are quite tight, shoes and buckles. 

E: Have you seen a picture like that before? O: Yes. 

E: Where? O: In an engraving. 

The card was then placed right side up in the former pack, about seventh 
from the top, and O was asked to pick out Washington’s picture. He ex- 
amined them in order for one and two-thirds minutes; and on reaching the 
correct card he said ‘I think this is it,” and looked no further. The other 
cards, said he, were also pictures, and he called one Madame de Pompadour. 

E: How did you recognize the pictures of Washington? O: I can 
always recognize his picture. It is full length. I didn’t see any other of 
him. 

E: How did you recognize the picture of Madame de Pompadour? 
O: I have just been studying it, (and he went on to give a full description— 
dress, books, globe, music, etc.). 

These answers are pretty nearly what one would expect from a person 
who had really been looking at a portrait. 


INTERIM STAGE: 
E: Are you awake? O: Yes. 


40 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


E: What has happened? O: I can’t remember. The last thing I can 
recall is a feeling as though waves were rushing down over my head. They 
go farther and farther away—and then I woke up. 

Sitting at the table (whether at E’s request or spontaneously, does not 
appear in the record), with a pencil placed by E in his screened right hand, 
he began at once to write spontaneously. At the same time he discussed 
with E this experience of hypnotic induction, laughing and talking easily. 
He repeated the multiplication tables of twelves and elevens, going in the 
latter to 18x 11. 

E: Can you still repeat those verses by Amy Lowell with which you 
amused me last year (referring to “Gargoyles”)? O: (laughing) I can’t 
remember them. 

E: Are you awake? O: (laughing) Yes, of course. 

E: What are you doing? O: Talking with you. 

E: What are you doing with your right hand? O: Nothing. I have a 
pencil in it. 

E: What have you been doing with it? O: Moving it around; but I 
haven’t been thinking about it. 

E: Tell me when you feel a touch (proceeding with the test which showed 
that the writing hand was anaesthetic to the wrist). O: My hand feels 
asleep. (later) My hand is so asleep I can hardly tell. (He hesitated in 
making answers; and said usually: “I think you touched me.’’) 

A test further showed that the writing hand was suggestible, though O 
felt that he was in full control in all parts. When the screened hand was 
brought once more into view, O felt all touches upon it while looking at it. 


Meanwhile O’s screened hand had been writing spontaneously. E moved 


the paper occasionally, and sometimes moved the hand into position, lifting 
it by the sleeve. Once in a while E, during his talk with O, looked at the 
writing and at the hand producing it. This method was followed throughout 
this experiment. The writing was as follows: 


Washington . . . Mme de Pompadour portraits|. . . Revolutionary 
coat. . .|. . .| brass buckles .. . on shoes}. . .| heavy whtte 
& gold | es . . . globe to represent her interes (E moved the paper 
here to start O on a new line) | interests in books music I can always | pick 

portraits . . . oranges|. . .|. . .| gold white 3 
a BER SCs 10) fr ae peas SORE ee vce: 1, OCESe. earn 


: | Gargoyles A Comedy ys Exag | (After writing. this title of a poem 
O began a new line spontaneously.) Thimble RO 

The contents of this writing refer to the experiences of Hyp. 1, with the 
exception of the part beginning with “ Gargoyles.” Here the poem is not cor- 
rectly named, “ Exag,” obviously abbreviated from Exaggeration, being sub- 
stituted for “ Oppositions.” The first line is correctly started. Its occurrence 
here is apparently due to the question about it, put to O during this same 
Interim Stage and which he laughingly declared he could not remember. 
It is of course possible that the little he wrote was known to him in his 
dominant state, in spite of his declaration of ignorance; he was not tested 
upon this. The source of “oranges” is in certain suggestions made to test 
the depth of Hyp. 1. 


Hypnotic STAGE 2: 

O was told to take his seat at the table on awaking, and write automatically, 
without being aware of it, the real basis of distinction by which he recog- 
nized the picture of Washington. 


SPLITTING THE MIND 41 


INTERIM STAGE 2: 

In answer to a question O stated that he recalled nothing of Hyp. 2. 
Rising and moving toward the table he was asked why he did so. Because 
he thought he would, was the reply. At E’s request, he recited some of 
Amy Lowell’s poetry. He also gave an account of what he had been doing 
all day. Reciting with difficulty some college songs, he took part in a 
bantering, laughing conversation. He was asked, with reference to each 
hand and foot, in successive questions, whether E had moved it. He replied 
in each case: “I don’t think you have.” He was also asked, severally, what he 
was doing with each hand and foot, and to each question he replied “ nothing.” 
He was not suggestible except in his concealed right hand, which was 
also anaesthetic as far as the wrist. He declared that he felt all right in 
every part; and yet, when E placed two hands on O’s two hands, O said 
his right hand felt asleep, and that he could not feel E’s hand on it. Being 
asked as to whether he felt that he had good control of both hands, he 
replied that he was not sure, because his right hand was so fast asleep. 
Referring to Int. 1, he commented that he was not quite as usual; he was 
day-dreaming. 

E: Are you now? O: No, but I have been while sitting here this time. 

E: Why do you say so? O: I felt differently. I didn’t think of it at the 
time; so the difference must appear only in retrospect. 

-E: Can you recall any of the day-dream? O: No. 

The screen was removed. When O’s eyes were closed, his right hand was 
still suggestible; when his eyes were open, he refused to obey, but with 
difficulty. At this time he wrote the following introspection: 

“My eyes were closed and I was told to raise my left hand, which I did. 
Then I was told to raise my right hand (but told also that he could not 
succeed) which I also did, both hands being raised with customary ease. I 
was then asked if my hands were up, and I answered that of course they 
were. I was told to open my eyes; and much to my surprise, my right hand 
was not raised from the table. I thought at first that I could not believe 
my eyes, because my right hand felt raised just as much as my left hand, 
which actually was raised. Of course I finally had to believe my eyes; but 
the situation was very startling and confusing. It came down to which 
sense I would believe really, because feeling told me it was up, and sight 
that it was down.” 

Then E took up the questioning again: 

E: What has been happening of importance? O: Talking with you. 

E: You have been writing. What have you written? O: I didn’t know 
that I was writing; so I don’t know what I wrote. 

Meanwhile his hand had been producing the following: 

By seeing the marks | although I didn’t know|it . .  .| only by marks 
marks marks | marks marks marks | marks marks marks | marks marks on the 
paper paper | marks on the paper 

This was the content of a single sheet. Much more was written to the 
same effect and with the same iteration but without further new ideas. All 
of it constitutes the response to the suggestion given in Hyp. 2. That the 
statements are true, that this is the actual basis for this well-known capacity 
in hypnosis, has been shown in certain unpublished experiments by E, of 
which the one now being reported constitutes a part. 

Hypnotic Stace 3: 

E: Now I want you to tell me what vou were doing at the table. O: Talk- 

ing with you and writing. 


42 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


E: What? O: How I told (recognized) the photograph. 

E: How did you? O: By marks on the paper. 

E: How can you remember now if you were not aware then? OQ: I don’t 
know. 

E: Did you know at the time, that you were picking out the picture by 
these marks? O: No. 

E: How do you know now? O: Because that is what I wrote. I thought 
I was picking it out by the picture. I saw others beside the one desired. 

E: Do you remember directly, now, how you did it? O: I don’t think 
so—except by the portrait. I think I see the marks and then see the 
portrait right off. 

E: Is this recalled from the original experience? O: No, I only saw the 
portrait then. 

E: Why do you think so now? O: Because that is what I wrote. 

E: Might you not have written what wasn’t so? O: No. 

E: Why are you so sure? O: You told me to write the reason; so I 
wrote it. 

E: Were these marks easy to find? O: I don’t remember. 

E: Do you recall looking for any other beside Washington? O: Yes— 
Abraham Lincoln. 


E: Did you find it? O: No. 

E: Why not? O: Because he wasn’t there. 

E: How could you tell? O: Because so many were upside down, I couldn’t 
tell. 

E: What were upside down? O: The pictures. 

E: What made you think them upside down? O: Because they looked 


that way. (This, of course, may have happened, but not intentionally, during 
the progress of the experiment. In the larger whole of which the present 
experiment formed a part, one, at least—the critical card—really was 
turned upside down, and possibly others.) 

E: Were you trying to recognize Lincoln as you did Washington? O. 
Yes, by the picture. 

E: You said you recognized Washington by the marks on the paper. O: 
I don’t remember doing that. 

E: When you waken you will write for me automatically the real reason 
why you failed to recognize Lincoln. 


INTERIM STAGE 3: 

O went to the table without further direction and his hand began to write 
behind the screen. He said that he recalled nothing which had been going 
on; that he had felt asleep. At E’s request, he named the states of the 
Union, forward and backward, using, he said, visual images to recall them; 
and he also named the Presidents but not in their order. Tests showed anaes- 
thesia of the writing hand as far as the wrist. 

E: What are you doing with your hand? O: Holding a pencil in it. 

E: Are you awake or asleep? O: Awake. 

E: Are you day-dreaming? O: While being touched. (The right hand 
was not the only part touched in the tests for anaesthesia.) f 

E: At any other time? O: Yes, pretty nearly all the time. 

E: Is this different from your ordinary experience? O: Yes. 

E: What do you mean by “day-dreaming”? O: Not being so aware of 
things around me, not so alert. 


SPLITTING THE MIND 43 


E: Lift your left hand. O does so. 

E: (pressing his hand down over O’s right) Lift your right hand. (E 
felt a little lifting movement under his hand but not much.) 

E: Have you done so? O: Yes—one hand was raised as high as the 
other. 

E: Is one hand as free as the other? O: Yes, so far as I can tell. 

The writing was this: 

I didn't notice the|marks on the . .:\. paper|.....|2 
marks on the paper marks|nkansasn . . . marks|no marks 
paper|. . . (This line to this point written from right to left) 
marks . . .|. . . marks on the|paper . . . paper... 
no marks on the paper | like Lincoln’s picture|. . . (with right-to- left 
return of the foregoing toward the end) . . . marks | on the paper paper | 

The truth of this statement, given in response to the demand for infor- 
mation on this point made in Hyp. 3, cannot, of course, be objectively veri- 
fied, but is in accord with the basis of judgment in such matters, as already 
stated in this experiment, on the ground of experimental evidence. 

The meaningless intrusion of a single state name out of the voice-group 
is puzzling. 


Hypnotic Stace 4: 

-E: What were you writing? O: The reason why I couldn’t find Lincoln’s 
picture (correct). 

E: What was it? O: I didn’t see the marks (that were) on Lincoln’s 
picture (correct). 

E: What sort of marks? O: Flaws on Lincoln’s picture that I could 
see. I wrote that I found the photograph by flaws. I remember the flaws. 
(But he does not remember using them as a clue to the portrait. See below.) 

E: Was what you wrote correct? .O: It must have been. 

E: Why do you say “must have been”? O: Because I don’t remember 
that it was. 

E: Do you mean that you had access to information when writing that you 
haven’t now? O: I did before I wrote. 

E: How much before? O: Just as soon as you told me to write it. 

E: While you were hypnotized? O: Yes. 

E: Did you at that moment actually recall? O: Yes. 

E: Can you now recall? O: Perhaps. 

E: Try. (then, after a pause) Have you succeeded? O: I can’t think of 
it very well. 

E: Now you can. O: Yes, I remember it now. 

E: Remember what? O: How I found the portrait. 

E: How did you find it? O: By the marks on the paper. 

E: Were you aware at the time of how you were finding it? O: No. 

E: Is it easier to talk of your experiences or to write of them? O: I 
don’t like to think of them. 

E: Why? O: Too hard. 

E: Would you rather I didn’t suggest that you remember them when you 
wake up? O: I don’t care. 

E: You will be able to recall these experiences easily, without effort. You 
will remember if you wish to. 

Post-HYPNoTIC STAGE: 

O felt more awake than ever. He recalled hallucinations from Hyp. 1; 

he remembered about writing (not the act—see below) but not what he had 


44 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


written; he remembered telling about the content of the writing but could 
not recall where or how he got the information. He remembered telling, 
not writing, it. He recalled also being told to do various things—raise his 
hands, etc. 

E: Did you feel much different at the table from the way you felt in the 
easy chair? O: No—not much of a breaking point between them. 

E: What was the situation in the easy chair? O: I was hypnotized. At 
the table I felt more like myself but not quite. There was a feeling of op- 
pression; I wanted to throw off something and be awake. 

E: Do you feel that way now? O: No, I don’t. In the Interim Stage 
at the table, when asked how I felt, I would say I felt awake the same as 
ever, and it seemed so; but just before and just after the question every- 
thing seemed hazy and not free. 

E: What did you feel about the suggestions for hand movements? O: 
It seemed to me that I was executing the right-hand movements; but as I 
felt no good report from that hand I wasn’t sure. 

E: You don’t usually remember these things when you come out of 
hypnosis. O: You told me to. 

E: Do you care to? O: I prefer to. 

E: How do you feel preference? O: In the Post-hypnotic stage the 
attempt to recall is disagreeable. (The term “ post-hypnotic” presumably 
means here any one of the interim stages also.) 

_E: What was the difference, in and out of hypnosis, in the reasons for 
wanting to remember? O: In hypnosis, because you want me to remem- 
ber; out of hypnosis, because I’m curious to know what took place. It is 
disagreeable even now to try to recall how I pick out the picture. (This 
was done in hypnosis, which, however, O declares below to be agreeable.) I 
remember about them but not the things themselves. I can remember tell- 
ing you (i.e., in hypnosis) how I did it but I don’t want to remember the 
“how” itself; I am not remembering it now. I have often noticed this. 

E: Do you think you could remember the “how”? O: Yes, I think I could. 

E: Why is it so disagreeable? O: Because the original state (meaning 
as shown below, an interim stage) was so confused. While in that state I 
was not bothered by it. It seems muddled and unreal—not the way I usually 
think. It is much more agreeable to be hypnotized than to be in one of 
those interim states. In hypnosis you take things as they come; in the in- 
terim state you have to sort of keep awake. It is perplexing to think of 
things then which you are able easily to think of when hypnotized. (Yet, 
in Hyp. 4 he declared it was “too hard” to think of how he had picked out 
portraits in hypnosis.) 

There is apparently some contradiction in O’s comparisons between hyp- 
notic and interim stages. These would all be resolved if. we suppose that 
the open-eye hypnosis of Hyp. 1, in which O picked out portraits, was more 
like interim states than like his usual hypnotic experiences. His introspec- 
tion seems to indicate that they felt more alike; and they have in common 
the important character of dissociation (or at least physical disconnection) 
of processes. 


Probative character of this experiment: There are three parts 
to the evidence, corresponding to as many instances of writing, 
and taken here in their original order. 


7 


SPLITTING THE MIND 45 


1. O spontaneously writes about matters of which he has 
previously been talking but has, in some sense, now forgotten. 
In this writing he also generalizes a little on the earlier situation 
(“I can always pick portraits’) and starts to write—and cor- 
rectly—other matters which he declares he has forgotten—all 
this, while in some sense unaware of his writing and while carry- 
ing on an animated conversation and repeating multiplication 
tables. No sufficient attempt was made to find out whether he 
could later recall what he had been writing. 

2. In two instances, while occupied with other matters requir- 
ing attention, and not able to recall certain directions given to him, 
he carries these out, though in some sense unaware of his act; 
and in so doing contradicts his own earlier statement. Later he 
recalls this act and the content of his writing, without access, 
meanwhile, to any source of information outside himself. 


Associative relations among the several stages and subgroups: 
The following summary gives the facts: 

Hyp. 1, with Int. 1, hand-group only (Hyp. 2 not tested) ; 
with Int. 2, hand-group only; with Hyp. 3, according to O’s 
assertion in Hyp. 4; with Int. 3, hand-group only; with Hyp. 4 
and Post-hyp., each, at least in part. _ 

Int. 1, hand-group; not with Post-hyp. (other stages not 
tested). Voice-group, with Int. 2, in part at least (other stages 
not tested). 

Hyp. 2, with Int. 2, hand-group only; with Hyp. 3 (later stages 
not tested). 

Int. 2, both groups with Hyp. 3 (Int. 3 and Hyp. 4 not tested) ; 
voice-group possibly, but not the hand-group, with Post-hyp. 
The contribution of this voice-group cannot be distinguished from 
the corresponding contributions of the next interim stage. Nor 
indeed can we tell whether each does contribute. 

Hyp. 3, with Int. 3, hand-group only (Hyp. 4 not tested) ; with 
Post-hyp., possibly, but it is impossible to distinguish between 
the contributions here of Hyp. 3 and Hyp. 4, nor can we be sure 
whether each does contribute. 

into: hand-group, with Hyp. 4; not with Post-hyp. Int. 3, 


46 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


voice-group (Hyp. 4 not tested) ; with Post-hyp., possibly. See 
above. 

Hyp. 4, with Post-hyp., possibly. See above. 

In all the foregoing there was no aid to recall furnished inten- 
tionally by suggestion from E except in Hyp. 4 in two instances, 
one to take effect in that same stage, the other in Post-hyp. 

From the foregoing facts one may conclude that, so far as 
tested, the several hypnotic stages were all synthesized in -Post- 
hyp., and the voice-group of the Interim Stages was also; but 
that the hand-group of all the interim stages remained dissociated 
from the final synthesis. 

Comments: (1) How much is the voice-group aware of the 
writing hand? The record of the three interim stages shows 
(a) that O was aware of holding the pencil (Int. 1 and 3; no 
test of Int. 2), (b) of moving it around but not thinking about it 
(Int. 1), (c) of doing nothing with it (Int. 2), (d) that this 
hand felt asleep (Int. 1 and 2), (e) that he had illusions of control 
over it (Int. 1, 2, 3). At no time was the voice-group aware of 
the meaning of the hand movement. (2) This experiment shows . 
that for dissociation in interim stages no special suggestion that 
O will not know what his writing hand is doing is necessary. 
This suggestion was not given for the first interim stage and was 
given for the other two, yet in all three O was unaware that he 
was writing. (3) In all the interim stages there was motor 
dissociation (disconnection) of the writing hand from the voice- 
group. This function was restored to the voice-group again by 
aid of vision, but with difficulty (Int. 2). (4) Anaesthesia again 
characterizes the writing hand, and touch is restored when the 
hand can be seen (Int. 1). That is to say, touch is integrated 
with the voice-group once more by aid of thé visual function. 
(5) Felt characteristics of the interim stages—dreaminess, hazi- 
ness, lack of freedom, oppression, sense of something to be thrown 
off—disappear at once before the question, “ Are you awake?” 
but return immediately after answer has been given. (6) Q’s 
statement in Hyp. 3 implied that Hyp. 1 was a double state, 7.e., 
one of co-consciousness; but being further questioned, it appeared 
that he did not recall directly a second group of experiences but 


SPLITTING THE MIND 47 


only his writing about that group, just as, later, he was able to 
recall not the writing but only telling about it. 


EXPERIMENT 10. 
May 3, 1921, 3:15 p.m. 


Ore adank. BceGech Bs, Rs Geko: 
(See introductory note to Experiment 9.) 


Hypnoric Srace 1: 

O is told that he will be shown a card on which will appear a portrait 
of Washington (the card, of course, being blank). He remarks that he 
knows Roosevelt’s portrait better. So E hands him a (suggested) picture of 
Roosevelt instead. O describes the portrait. This card is then put aside 
down into a small pack of similar blank cards, and O fails to find the 
portrait again. E gives him the same card again, in the original position, ask- 
ing whose portrait it is. The record of the reply is as follows: “O answers 
George Washington. This is Roosevelt, says O—about like the other, but 
in this one hasn’t glasses on—did in the other—suggests, himself, pictures 
on the cards—McKinley, Wilson, Harding. Correct judgment given in 40 
Sec. -Card D (one used in the earlier Roosevelt experiment. C. T. B.) was 
used again, not reversed.” From the tenor of this statement and of the 
following dialogue, it seems warrantable to doubt that R has inserted 
Washington in the correct place in the record. O’s recognition of other 
portraits was due to E’s suggestion that he do so;—O remarking that it 
seemed to be a series of the Presidents; and occasionally passing over one 
as not identifiable. 

E: How did you recognize Roosevelt? O: By his features, especially his 
smile. 

E: What were you thinking of between times? O: Presidents, I guess. 

E: Are you sure you recognized the pictures by characteristics of features? 
‘O: Yes, the same as any picture. 

E: When you waken, go to the table and write for me the real basis by 
which you distinguished the picture of Roosevelt. You will be unaware 
that you are writing and will be able to converse meanwhile. 


INTERIM STAGE: 

E: What do you remember? O: Good nap (going to the table and sitting 
down), just like being asleep. (It is an error, perhaps, that O was not ques- 
tioned further on this point, to make sure he could not recall.) 

He describes the feeling of on-coming hypnosis; his inability to recognize 
its arrival. Meanwhile his right hand is writing. He describes further, 
‘how he goes to sleep; then—spontaneously-—-what he did the night before.— 
the dreams he had, etc. He converses rapidly, easily, entertainingly. Once. 
early in the writing, in a pause of the conversation, he had a far-away look. 

E: What have you been doing? O: Talking about dreams, describing how 
I go under hypnosis, etc. 

E: Was anything else happening? O: No, only your touching me. (This. 
‘presumably, refers to check tests on other parts of the body. Tests for 
anaesthesia of right hand had been positive as far as the wrist.) 

E: Are you awake or asleep? O: Awake. 

Ee Surer (OO? Yes: 

O has no control over the writing hand, but over his other limbs he has. 


48 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


For example: 

E: (in a loud and confident tone) Now, you are going to lift your right 
hand (which is, of course, behind the screen). (O obeys.) 

E: Now you can’t put it down. O: Yes I can (but he does not). 

E: Are you awake? O: Yes, sure! 

O says that his hands are cold, that he can’t feel with his right hand,. 
though he can with his left. When E takes the screen away, O regains con- 
trol. Now follows a test of suggestibility, the right hand being visible to O. 

E: You have to scratch your ear with your right hand. O: (scratches it | 
with his left hand. He says that he must look at his right, to make sure 
it doesn’t scratch the ear; he doesn’t dare look away. But he succeeds in 
refraining. ) 

E: Is your hand all right now? O: (Finds it numb.) 

E: What was on the table? O: Paper and writing. (This had been 
carelessly left in view when the screen was moved, apparently without actual 
harm to the experiment, as shown by O’s next reply, but regrettably bung- 
ling.) 

E: What was the writing? O: I don’t know. I thought you wouldn't 
want me to read it. I had no inclination to do so; didn’t care what it did 
say. 

O is then told to put his right hand again behind the screen; he does so- 
and shuts his eyes. 

E: You can’t lift your right hand. O: (Hand does not rise.) 

E: Did you do this (1.e., lift your hand)? O: Yes. 

The screen being removed, O reports that his right hand is numb again. 
During the foregoing events of Int. the following writing was produced. 
It was interrupted, partly by tests for anaesthesia, partly because E did not. 
allow further opportunity for trial. 

. . I chose the picture | of Roosevelt | by the marks marks | marks: 
marks marks | marks |by the mark by the marks| Roosevelt, McKinley 
Roosevelt by the marks marks | by the marks | marks by marks | Washing- 
ton | McKinley Roosevelt grant | . . . | McKinley no picture | Roosevelt 
Roosevelt | Roosevelt McKinlyey | Roosevelt .. . | 


Hypnotic STAGE 2: 

E: What were you doing at the table? O: Talking to you about dreams.. 
You were touching my right hand. 

E: Did you know it? O: Not then. 

E: How now? O: Don’t know. Perhaps I knew it then but didn’t think 
about it. 

E: Were you aware then when I touched your right hand? O: Yes, I 
knew it. 
: But you didn’t say so. O: (hesitates) Don’t know. 
: What does that mean? O: I’ve forgotten the question. 
: (Repeats the question.) O: I didn’t know it then but do now. 
: When did you get the information? O: I remember it now. 
: Remember it now and not know it then? O: Yes. 
: Does this seem contradictory to you? O: You told me I wouldn’t 
know I was writing. 

E: Does this seem contradictory to you now? O: No. 

E: You could raise your left hand, though. O: You didn’t tell me any-- 
thing about my left hand. 


eoResRcoReNcofes) 


SPLITTING THE MIND 49 


E: Did your right hand obey you or me when suggestions were given? 
O: When I wasn’t looking at it, it obeyed you. 

E: Was it obeying you the rest of the time? O: Yes. 

E: How could you tell? O: Felt as though it was. 

E: How could you feel it was obeying you and yet know it wasn’t? O: 
(hesitating, a look of troubled effort on his face; then after a long pause) 
I forgot the question. 

E: Did you notice what I whispered to R? O: No. 

E: How could you feel that your hand was obeying you and yet know 
that it wasn’t? O: I didn’t know that it wasn’t. 

E: How do you know now? O: Part of me must have known, because I 
can remember now, though I didn’t know then; that is, I didn’t think about 
it when talking to you. : 

E: Were you the part that was talking to me or the part that was writ- 
ing? QO: The part that was writing. 

E: Who was talking to me? O: That was—(hesitates) I don’t like to 
talk about that. 

E: Why not? O: I don’t like to think it was anybody else. 

E: Did -you feel quite natural while talking at the table? O: I don’t know 
whether I was talking to you or not. 

_E: You don’t remember how you felt? O: J felt all right. 

E: Who was talking to me if not you? O: (Silent. The record adds 
“uncomfortable, O says, doesn’t like to think about it.’’) 

E: Do you want to remember about this when you waken? O: I don’t 
care—yes. 

E: Was it true when you said, on waking formerly, that you didn’t re- 
member what happened? O: Yes—IJ knew about it, though. 

E: And that wasn’t you? O: (after an effort) Yes, that was me. . The 
suggestion is then given to O that he will remember on waking. 


PosT-HYPNOTIC STAGE: 

E: What does your present state seem like? O: Waking up from a nap. 
Not so clear as I usually am on waking up,—a dazed feeling, like when you 
wake up suddenly. 

‘E: Do you recall what has been happening? O: Pictures of Roosevelt 
and Washington—Roosevelt’s twice (correct). 

E: What happened more recently? O: You told me to write at the table. 
I don’t know what went on then—something about dreams. I don’t re- 
member these things so well. Then you asked me if I had been writing at 
the table (really, what he had been doing). I can’t remember other things 
except confusedly. 1! remember telling you about writing but not the writ- 
ing itself. I remember your asking me questions about it but not just what 
they were. (Correct answers with the exception noted above.) 

E: Do you now recall it? O: You asked me how I could write (really, 
feel the hand was obeying and yet know it was not) and not know it; but 
I have forgotten what I told you. 

E: Can you tell me now? O: No, not by introspection. It seems as 
though first part of hypnosis was smooth and clear; then it became very 
confused. I don’t feel as if I wanted to remember. 

E: There is no other quality of this last hypnotic period that you can 
recall? ©O: I feel as if it was not very pleasant. I don’t like snarled up 
things. 

E: Would you like to recall all? O: I don’t want to make the effort. 


50 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


E: If you could without effort, would you like to? O: Don’t know, 
sometimes I think I would, then that I wouldn’t. 

E: Did the last hypnotic state feel deep? O. Yes. After such I usually 
recall that something has happened, but not precisely what. 

As the foregoing experiment failed to show later knowledge of the orig- 
inal contents of the writing and as our canons of proof required this to be 
shown, a supplementary inquiry was undertaken on the same observer two 
days later (May 5, 1921, 2.00 p.m.) The original comment on the record, 
made close to the time the record itself was produced, states that he had, 


meanwhile, no access to outside sources of information; but it neglects to ~ 


state how E was assured of this. In Hyp. 1, O was approached as follows: 

E: I want you to recall for me what you wrote at the table a few days 
ago. QO: Didn’t know I was writing. 

E: What did you write about—what was the content of the writing? O: 
What you had told me to. 

E: What was that? O: How I picked out the picture. 

E: How did you? O: By—(hesitates) the marks on the paper. 

E: Do you remember what words you used? O: By the marks I picked 
out the picture of Roosevelt. (The original statement ran: I chose the pic- 
ture of Roosevelt by the marks.) 

E: Did you use these phrases? O: I think so—hard to remember. 


E: Do you remember anything else you wrote, if anything? O: Some- 


thing about Washington. I wrote by the marks two or three times because 
I wanted you to understand. (The objective facts here stated are correct but 
understated. ) 

E: Try again to remember anything else you wrote. O: I wrote Lincoln 
(this may perhaps be the final illegible word); and by the marks three or 
four times. 

E: Have you heard anything I have said to George? O: I heard it but 
paid no attention to it; I didn’t think you were talking to me. 

E: Can you tell what was said? O: Once you said: “Did you get that?” 
and then: “Is this going too fast for you?” I don’t think I heard anything 
else. (He speaks very slowly, knitting his brows and compressing his 
mouth—characteristic of him in hypnosis in this experiment and that of 
May 3, 1921.) 

E: Can you tell what George has said in reply to me? O: Once he said: 
“ What was that after that last question?” and once he said “ yes”; and once 
he said “ Yes, I’ve got that.” I don’t think he said anything else—yes, he said 
“What?” once or twice. 

E: What are you thinking of now? O: Not thinking. 

E: Having any experience at all? O: No—answering questions; and I can 
hear you asking questions and some one else speaking (voices from below). 

E: Any spontaneous thoughts of your own? O: No. 


Probative character of this experiment: O writes comments, 
pertinent and according to a plan, concerning his own earlier 
actions. He is in some sense unaware of so doing and, at the 
same time, engaged in animated conversation. Later, without 
access to outside sources of information, he is able to report with 
little error leading features of the content of that writing. 





SPLITTING THE MIND 51 


Associative relations among the several stages and subgroups: 
Those of Hyp. 1 to later stages were not, so far as the record 
shows, fully investigated. A general statement of O, which, on 
its face, includes the present case, seems to justify the statement 
that vague associative relations persisted with the voice-group in 
Int. With the hand-group, the connection was close, also with 
Hyp. 2, though the breadth of connection here was not investi- 
gated; and, by suggestion, close connection persisted with Post- 
hyp. Int. showed mutual dissociation between the partial groups, 
these in turn being partly reunited in Hyp. 2. By suggestion the 
voice-group persists in Post-hyp., but the hand-group disappears 
unless it be as an awareness of a mere somewhat. Special items 
of Hyp. 2 are associated with Post-hyp. 

Comments: (1) In some way O felt that he was controlling 
the movements of his right hand; yet he knew later, without 
information from anyone else, that he was not. In some way, 
too, he could feel no touches on his writing hand, but afterward 
knew that he had been touched there. (2) Ordinarily such a 
question as, ““ What have you been doing?” is sufficient to call 
one’s attention at least to the unusual features of one’s conduct. 
Not so in this case in Int. (3) It is interesting to see the 
“struggle” of the visual function to retain in its group the 
right-hand-tactual function. When the right hand passed from 
view its tactual functions became at once dissociated. In the 
struggle the left hand seemed to assist by taking the suggestion 
given to the other. Even when the right hand was made visible 
its tactual-kinesthetic function was altered; it felt numb. Is this 
an associated sensation, appearing because usually accompanying 
this type of situation? The hand also felt cold to O. There is 
no indication in the record that this was tested. It was, however, 
not improbably an objective fact, for E noted that at least one 
other observer’s writing hand seemed quite cold to E’s touch. 
So it may be that the felt numbness had a peripheral basis. (4) 
The writing contradicts the statement made in Hyp. 1. In the 
latter O asserted that he recognized the pictures by characteristics 
of features “the same as any picture’’; in writing, “by the 
marks,” “no picture.” (5) Hesitation, troubled effort, silence 


52 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


were characteristic behavior of O when he tried to face the 
apparent contradictions in his introspection. (6) One may remark 
on O’s apparent indifference, in hypnosis and the Interim Stage, 
to what he does not think is meant for him. 


EXPERIMENT 11. 
May 18, 1921, 2:45 p.m. ° 
a TWN Pe BA 2 Bis Gnt. Ba Rs.G; Kore 


Hypnotic Stace 1: 

The following directions were given to O: When you waken you will sit 
down at the writing table. I will show you a number on a piece of paper. 
If it be in ink of one color you will make automatically for each digit a 
corresponding number of circles, in a row, row under row; if in ink of two 
colors, use crosses for red ink digits and circles for those in black. Other- 
wise proceed as in the other case. (These directions were repeated; and 
then) Do you understand? (Affirmative reply.) 


INTERIM STAGE: : 

O goes to the table and sits down, putting his hand behind the screen spon- 
taneously, as both he and G. E. H. do regularly in such cases. 

E: What do you remember? O: Nothing. 

E: Is it a blank? O: Not quite. I feel as if something is there. 

E: What is the difference? O: As if something is there. I don’t know 
what. 
E: Is it like a forgotten name? O: I have no desire to think of this. I 

am annoyed to forget a name; but not this. , 

E: Can you say the multiplication table of 9’s? (O does so.) 

E: (showing O a card bearing the number 724, the 2 in red, the others 
in black) What’s that number? O: 724. 

E: What is its meaning to you? O: Nothing; just 724. 

E: Does it remind you of anything? O: No. I think I had a key like 
that once (with doubtful smile). 

bos Lscthiatiall tO sy ee: 

E: Can you describe the present situation? O: I am sitting in a chair, 
talking to you. You showed me a number, meaning nothing, in two kinds 
of ink. I’ve been trying to describe what I was thinking about. 

E: What else went on? O: George (R) writing at the table—nothing else. 

E: (who has been making some movements behind the screen) What 
do my actions make you think of? O: Asking questions, showing me num- 
bers, looking behind screen. 

E: What does looking behind the screen make you think of? O: That 
I might be writing. 

E: What is your right (writing) hand doing? O: Nothing. 

E: Can you catch it in anything? O: No. 

E: Your left hand? O: Yes, if I were doing anything with it. 

E: What do you hear? O: (who is actually making perceptible scratch- 
ing noises with the pencil, while writing) Train moving, batted ball, George 
writing, his chair creaking, minor noises. I could identify them if I tried 
to—rustle of clothing, etc. 

E: What are you doing with your right hand? O: Nothing. 


SPLITTING THE MIND 53 


E: Do you surmise that you are doing something? O: Yes, that I am 
writing, because I have done it before. 

E: Do you feel it doing anything? O: No. 

During the foregoing conversation O was writing as follows in an irregu- 
lar, cramped hand: 

I am to make the I (written before the number was shown. Then fol- 
lows, in strict accord with the original suggestion, in three rows under each 
other, seven circles, two crosses, and four circles. Then the writing con- 
tinues.) Circles for black numbers |and crosses for red ones|in parallel 


rows. If in one .. . | (new sheet) Jf one colors I am to | show and 

if two colors I am to make . . . |circles crosses circles & crosses | 

There are two colors ci| circles & crosses different color of ink | crosses 
crosses 


One should observe that the statements made in the foregoing writing are 
correct; also that an interesting substitution of the appropriate word “ par- 
allel” has been made for the phrasing used in the original directions. 

Tests now made for anaesthesia are positive on the writing hand even 
half-way up that forearm and beyond. O’s manner of acknowledging the 
stimulus in that region in comparison with other parts of the body, is slow, 
hesitant, indicating that he barely feels it, as the following exchange shows: 

E: Why the difference in tone when saying yes (word used to acknowl- 
edge a felt stimulus)? O: Sometimes you touch so lightly I hardly know 
whether you are touching or not. (Needless to say, this was not an ob- 
jective difference.) 

E now proceeds to determine whether stimuli on the anaesthetic area can 
be shown to produce in O conscious effects of whose origin he is unaware. 

E: Please settle back quietly and tell me what number comes into your 
mind. Think of counting up the units that make up some number, for ex- 
ample, 1-2-3-4-5-6 for six, 1-2-3-4 for four, etc. Then tell me what num- 
ber comes into your head. 

Touching with the blunt end of a pencil the anaesthetic hand, in each 
case, the intended number of times, E used the following series: 2, 3, 5, 4, 
TAG LD 1.8, 

O: First number I-thought of was 13. 

E: When? O: A few minutes ago. (In this case enough time had elapsed 
before the stimulus was given to permit a choice in advance. The stimuli 
were given more promptly thereafter, at the rate of about three in two 
seconds. ) 

E: Think again. O: 9. 

E: Again. O: 7. 

E: Once more. O: 4. 

From this point O’s-replies agreed with the stimulus. Once during the 
series, a query or perhaps a mere glance from E that meant curiosity as to 
the source of these numbers, made O say, “Any object to take numbers from, 
—as when George tapped his pen against his head.” 

At the conclusion of the series a test for anaesthesia of the right hand 
was positive. Then occurred the following conversation: 

E: Where did you get the numbers? O: All sorts of places—some just 
thought of. 

E: How did they appear in your mind? O: Association. Was trying to 
think of numbers—lucky 2, unlucky 13. Don’t know how the rest came— 
sometimes from George’s motions—not consciously though. 


54 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


E: Did you have any sensory imagery with the numbers? O: Don’t re- 
member. Don’t think so. May have been, but I don’t remember now. 

E: Do you recall anything else of significance to report? O: No. (E 
insists.) O: I can remember something but— 

E: What was that? O: I imagined the numbers as little white dots rep- 
resenting units of numbers. I’m not sure I had this at the time though. 

E: Shake hands with me. (O would of course naturally use his right, 
i.e., anaesthetic, hand.) Have you? O: Yes (incorrect). 

E: How does your hand feel to you? O: Normal. 

E: Tell me when I touch your hand. O: It feels numb. I can’t tell when 
you do or don’t. 

E: Lift it. (O obeys.) 

E: Now you can’t lift it. O: Yes I can (but he doesn’t). 

E: Now every time you try to lift your hand it will go down. Now 
where is it? O: In the air (incorrect). 

E: Are you awake or asleep? O: Awake (and he refuses suggestions di- 
rected to his left hand. The right hand is still anaesthetic.) 

E: You can’t keep your right hand down. Are you? O: Yes (incor- 
rect). 

The screen was then removed, whereupon O’s right hand was no longer 
suggestible, in spite of E’s insistence. O, however, made obvious efforts 
to resist, keeping an intent gaze on the hand and rubbing it with the other. 
When he looked away, it yielded to suggestions again. 

E: How does your hand feel? O: Kind of numb. 

Being placed once more behind the screen, the hand again obeyed. O 
then returned to the easy chair. 

E: Do you feel quite awake? O: Yes, but sleepy. 


Hypnotic STAGE 2: ; 

E: Now tell me what you were doing at the table. O: Writing. 

E: What? O: What you told me to do. 

E: What was that? O: I was shown a number. If it was in ink of 
one color, I was to make that number of circles across the paper; if two 
colors, circles for the digits in black ink, crosses for those in red across 
the paper. 

E: What was the number? O: 724. 

E: Of what color the ink? O: 7 and 4 black, 2 red. 

E: What did you write? O: Seven circles and two crosses below that 
and then four circles. 

E: What else? O: Wrote crosses and circles several times. 

(All the foregoing answers are correct.) 

E: Anything else? O: Couldn’t write all I wanted to. 

E: Why? O: Hand wouldn’t write everything I wanted. 

E: What did you want to write? O: All the instructions you gave me. 

E: Why couldn’t you? O: Because I couldn’t make my hand do what I 
wanted it to do all the time. 

E: What prevented? O: Because I was trying to prevent it. 

E: Trying to prevent what? O: I thought it must be doing something 
though I didn’t know it at the time; and so I tried to keep it from doing it.” 

E: Did anything else happen to that hand? O: Yes, you touched it 
several times, sometimes with your hand, sometimes with something sharp, 
but I didn’t know, at the time it occurred, that you touched me. 

E: How, then, can you know it now? O: I remember it now. 





SPLITTING THE MIND 55 


E: What are you thinking of now? O: Nothing. 

E: Are you asleep? O: No. 

E: Do you feel in good control of yourself? O: Yes, if you want me 
to have control. 

E: What if I don’t? O: Then I don’t want to. 

By direction of E, who gave it unobtrusively, R here undertook to make 
suggestions to O, telling him to raise his hands. O did not obey. 

E: Did you hear that? O: I heard something, but I didn’t pay any 
attention to it, because I didn’t think it concerned me. 

O now followed E’s suggestion, which was a repetition of R’s. 

E: Does this feel like ordinary waking? O: No. 

E: How different? OO: More comfortable, care-free, no extreme of 
any kind. 

E: What does matter to you now? O: Nothing but what you want me 
to think of. 

E: Was your right hand under your control at the table? O: No. 

E: Why not? O: Because you didn’t want it to be. 

E: How did you know that? O: By the way you spoke. 

E: Were‘you aware of that at the time? O: No. 

E: Did you make a serious effort to recall at the table? O: Yes, but I 
didn’t feel like thinking about things. I tried to, but really didn’t want to. 

E: Was it a really serious attempt? O: Yes, because of the difficulties 
I had to overcome. 

E: What were the difficulties? O: Can’t explain them. 

E: Were you awake at the table? O: Not wholly. 

E: Was that experience like anything you know in real life? O: Very 
much like waking in the morning. Seems as though part of my body 
belongs to someone else, though I could control it if I wanted to. 
Post-HYPNOTIC STAGE: 

E: Do you recall anything that has been taking place? O: Not a thing. 
(E insists, but O aiso persists.) 

E: Does the table recall to you anything that has happened this after- 
noon? O: (Hestitates) I think I have been over there before, during 
this afternoon, but I didn’t think of it till you spoke of it. 

E: What is the most recent thing you can recall? O:I1 can’t say I 
recall the table; not sure I was over there—might have been. The last 
thing I can remember is “relax completely” (a direction given by E 
while inducing Hyp. 1). 


Probative character of this experiment: O selects and employs 
pertinent facts according to a plan, and writes about it; he also 
notes peculiar qualities of a touch stimulus; while in some sense 
unaware of it all and engaged in conversation and other mental 
employment ordinarily requiring much attention. Later O recalls 
it all without, meanwhile, having received information from any 
source outside himself. 

Associative relations among the several stages and subgroups: 
Hyp. 1 has a very slight connection with the voice-group of Int. 
and full connection with the hand-group; but, so far as the evi- 


56 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


dence goes, without connection, unless indirect, with any later 
group. In Int. the hand-group is dissociated from the voice- 
group except that, under special conditions of mental set in the 
voice-group, a few stimuli belonging to the hand-group cause 
images within the voice-group. The two groups are united, at 
least to an important extent, in Hyp. 2. (The record shows no 
complete testing in this stage for all the items of each group of - 
Int.) Post-hyp. shows a very slight connection with Int. and 
no other. 

Comments: (1) The scope of the dissociated hand-group is to 
be noted. Included with it is a considerably greater touch-area 
than in the case of Observer H. Certain auditory items are 
split off with it. (2) The usual methods of directing attention, 
ordinarily effective, do not suffice to reunite the two groups. 
(3) The automatic writing was to a large extent spontaneous, 1.e., 
it functioned beyond the scope explicitly assigned by suggestion. 
(4) There is motor as well as sensory dissociation between the 
subgroups of Int. The voice-group is “deceived”’ as to its 
success, both in moving and in preventing the movement of the 
special motor organ of the hand-group. (5) The voice-group 
can “ feel” stimuli in the right hand when they do not exist, as 
well as fail to feel them when they do. (6) Vision, as a function 
of the voice-group, brings back the missing right-hand-touch func- 
tion. (7) The attempt of the voice-group to control the right- 
hand function brings into evidence new sensory items from that 
hand, viz., numbness, which persists even when vision restores it 
somewhat to the control of the voice-group. (8) Int. is felt as 
a sleepy stage. (9) O recalls that stage as one of cross purposes, 
inner opposition, and defeat, but as lacking at the time any 
insight into its own meaning. (10) The abnormal character of 
the subgroups is shown by the susceptibility of both to suggestion. 
(11) The indifference of O to his incapacity in Int. is like that 
of the hysteric for his lost functions. 


SPLITTING THE MIND 57 


EXPERIMENT 12. 
May 18, 1921, 4:15 p.m. 


OPT Ca OMS LOE OSM yal oP Ba) Lae, 


Hypnotic Stace 1: 

Directions to O: On awaking you will go to the automatic-writing table. 
I will show you a piece of paper containing two numbers. You will perform 
the division of these numbers, the larger by the smaller, if they are given 
in ink of one color; the subtraction of the smaller from the larger, if in 
ink of different colors. Write the answer automatically. (The directions 
were repeated; and then) Do you understand? (Affirmative reply.) 


INTERIM STAGE: 

O goes to the table. 

E: Do you remember anything that has just taken place? O: No, I don’t 
remember anything that has happened. 

E: Are you quite awake? O: Yes. 

During the foregoing conversation O is writing the following: answer a 
problem of division or | subtraction. 

E: What is that (showing a card containing the numbers 27 and 9, both 
in black ink)? O: 27 and 9. ; 

E: What does it remind you of? O: The last experiment (with another 
observer on the same afternoon). 

E: What do you guess about it? O: I guess I am to perform some sort 
of a problem; but I don’t see how; for in the last experiment there was 
only one number and there are two in this. 

During the foregoing conversation O’s right hand has produced the 
following arrangements of digits in a space 254 x 134 inches. 

3 3 3 3 


SS. eon, a 
3 eS 
3 3 
3 


The lowest 3 in the left column was written last; it was fused with the 
first word of the next sentence written. This makes it probable, in default 
of any notation by E in the record, that these digits were produced in rows 
rather than columns. The regularity of the resulting figure was very 
nearly as precise as in this printed reproduction. The writing continued 
as follows: 

I am dividing 27 by 9 be | cause they are the same | color but I don’t know it. 

Here are given correctly both the solution of the problem and its statement. 

A test now made for anaesthesia of the writing hand was positive; but 
with this variant: Whenever any other part of the body was touched in 
this test O said yes; whenever the writing hand was touched he said nothing 
and gave no sign of perceiving it, except that the stimulated hand would 
make each time a vertical mark, arranging these in a row. This was 
done spontaneously, so far as E is aware. 

A test was now made to see whether stimuli on the anaesthetic hand 
could be shown to produce in O conscious effects of whose origin he was 
unaware. The hand was touched with the blunt end of a pencil the 
intended number of times, at the rate of about three in two seconds, 
according to the following series: 7, 3, 4, 1, 9, 2, 8, 6, 5. 

E: I want you to think of a one-place number. Think of counting the 


58 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


units in it thus: one, two, three, four, for 4, etc. O: 1 thought of 7 
(correct), but probably because it was the first number in the last experiment 
(which was a fact—724). 

: Think once more please. O: I thought of 3 (correct). 

: Why? O: Because, perhaps, 4 from 7 leaves 3. 

: Think again. O: All that seems to run in my head is that combination. 
: What? O: That 724 combination. 

: Think of a single one. O: 4 (correct). 

: Think of another. O: I don’t think of any special number. 

: Think again. O: No one number. 

: Single digit. O: I might say 4 (incorrect, a repetition of the preceding). 
: Once more. O: 9 (correct); 7 and 2 make 9. 

: Once more. O: 2 (correct). 

: Why? O: Because it’s another one of those numbers (724). 

= (Ley again. O: I don’t think of anything. 

: Try again to imagine. O: 7 (incorrect). 

: Again. O: 6 (correct)—one I hadn’t mentioned, so I thought I might 
as well try it. 

E: Again. O: 5 (correct). 

E: Why? O: 2 from 7 leaves 5 (harking back once more to 724). 

E: What have you been doing? O: Thinking up numbers. 

E: Is that all? Can you guess that you were doing anything you haven't 
mentioned? O: I might be writing, because that is what I generally do 
when I sit here with my hand behind the screen. 

E: Have you been aware of it this afternoon? O: No. 

E: Are you awake now? O: Yes. 

E: As much awake as when acting as clerk (recorder)? O: Not quite 
so much awake because I’ve just been asleep (referring to Hyp. 1). 

E: What are you thinking of? O: Nothing at all. 


At this point, for the four questions following, the record becomes 
obviously an incomplete picture of the experiment, but cannot well be 
omitted. (See record of Hyp. 2 for what should presumably have been 
entered here.) 

E: Can you put both hands down? O: I think so. 

E: Why do you say “I think so”? O: Because I wasn’t thinking of 
whether I was putting them down or not. 

E: I am going to shake hands with you. Are you now shaking hands 
with me? O: I don’t think I am. 

E: Do you feel my hand? O: No. 


Meanwhile there has been more writing produced spontaneously. It has 
been scattered over the period elapsing since the test for anaesthesia was 
made. Here is the record: 

Seventhree ... |... | one| nine | what a| what a| Give to ... | two 
to . . . ix | no I don’t feel as awake | but I can’t tell of course | I don’t 
know | awake I don’t|why I dowt fe . . «| 

Here are fragmentary references to the original problem, to an occasional 
question, and to some felt inhibition. 

E: Write your name now. Have you done so? O: 1 don’t think so 
(but he has). 

E: Now you will tell me whether you have written it or not. Have you 
done so? O: No (hand writes “yes”). 


ted teh td ted ted ted ted et tod tt td tl 


SPLITTING THE MIND 59 


E: Now you will write whether your last answer (i.e., oral answer) was 
correct. Have you done so? O: No. (Hand has, however, written “ No.’”’) 
A test for anaesthesia of the writing hand was made about this time, 
O’s eyes being closed. 
: Do you feel that you have good control over both hands? O: No. 
: Where is your control least? O: In the right arm. 
: Can you do what you want to with it? O: No. 
: Why not? O: Because I don’t feel it. 

E: Write the name of this state and regain control of your right arm. 
(O writes “ Maine.”) 

Whether control was thereby regained does not appear in the record; 
for in answering the questions just preceding, O began to appear so obvi- 
ously passive that a new hypnosis was suspected. Being told to open his 
eyes he, at first, remained passive; but, after repeated suggestions, he 
conformed. 

E: Are you now awake? O: Yes. 

E: What is the last thing you remember? O: You were touching my 
hand several times. (This perhaps locates the onset of hypnosis in the 
foregoing record.) 

E: Do you recall anything about the right hand? O: No. 

This amnesia indicates that O did fall spontaneously into hypnosis while 
being tested for anaesthesia. The different tenor of his replies here is 
thus accounted for. The following questions were asked with the intent 
to test O’s present degree of suggestibility. 

E: You won’t understand what my next question means. What did you 
have for dinner to-day? O: We had—— 

E: Are you sure you can remember? O: I can tell you if I can recall. 

E: What? O: Eggs (correct, according to R). 

E: Now rub your hands over each other. Do you feel awake? O: Yes. 

E: As much as when acting as R? O: Just the same as when you asked 
the question before. 

(O had evidently recovered from his brief spontaneous hypnosis.) 


icomeomes me] 


Hypnoric STAGE 2: 

E: Tell me, please, what were you doing at the table? O: Writing 
different things for you. 

E: What did you write? O: 3 which was the answer to the problem. 

E: How could it be? O: How could it be anything else? 

E: How did you get it? O: Divided 27 by 9. 

E: Why divide? O: Because the ink was of one color. 

E: What else happened? O: I wrote what I was doing and answers to 
questions you asked. 

E: Did you know you were doing it? O: No. 

E: What else happened? O: That was all that I wrote—just answering 
questions. 

E: Any other experiences received by right hand? O: Yes, you touched 
it, raised it, made it go from side to side. 

(A part of the record above indicates that this may well have been true, 
but the record does not note it specifically.) 

E: What kind of touches? O: Sometimes with something very sharp, 
sometimes with finger (correct). ae 

E: Were you aware of this at the time? O: No. 


60 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


E: What happened when your eyes were shut at the table? O: I was 
doing various things for you. 

E: Were you in the same sort of state as just before and after that? O: I 
think so. You said to wake up and I opened my eyes. 

E: Were you awake while at the writing table? O: No. 

E: Were you asleep? O: No. 

E: How describe the state? O: I didn’t know very much. 

E: What do you mean? O: 1 didn’t think of anything and couldn’t 
think of many things. 

: Are you awake or asleep now? O: I’m not asleep. 

: Do you feel as you do ordinarily during the day? O: No. 

: What is the difference? O: More comfortable and know more. 

: Know more? O: Yes. 

: What do you mean? QO: I can remember about things I don’t usually. 
: Can you illustrate? O: I can remember picking out portraits one 
afternoon, then writing about them, describing them. (This is a correct 
reference to a former experiment and events that occurred during hypnosis. 
The record shows no attempt to test O’s ability to recall them outside 
hypnosis. ) 

E: What are you thinking about? O: I was thinking about what I was 
telling you about. 

E: What was that? O: Picking out portraits. I remember last year 
not being able to speak, and writing you about it (all of which really 
occurred as O states, in hypnosis). 

E: Don’t you remember it when awake? O: I only remember about it; 
I don’t remember it. (O had had plenty of opportunity to learn about 
this outside hypnosis.) 

Here R attempted to make motor suggestions. No response. 

E: Why don’t you do that? O: Because I don’t want to. 

The same suggestions now made by E are accepted. 

E: Why do you do it now? O: I want to. 

E now gives O the suggestion that he cannot lower his raised arm, though 
trying hard to do so. This is accepted. 

E: Tell me about your effort in trying to put down your arm. O: It 
won't come. I’ve forgotten how to do it. 

E: To do what? O: To put it down. 

E: Now you can tell how to do it. (O then lowered his hand.) 

E: Can you recall answers to any other questions at the table? O: Yes, 
I put down a mark every time you touched me, to show you I knew you 
did it. 

E: Do you recall anything else? O: You told me to write yes or no to 
certain questions. You told me to write my name and whether my answer 
was right. 

E: Was your answer right? O: What I wrote was right. 

E: Was what you said right? O: No. 

E: Was it said truthfully? O: Yes, but I am so stupid I never know 
what is right and what isn’t. 

E: Do you know what I have been saying from time to time to Joe (R)? 
O: No, I haven’t noticed. 

E: Why? O: Because you haven’t been talking to me. 

E: Does your mind feel clear now? O: Yes. 

E: Clearer than when at the table? O: Yes. 


eoReReResMcofc 


SPLITTING THE MIND 61 


PosT-HYPNOTIC STAGE: 

O remarks on awaking, that he seems to have been more fast asleep 
than usual. 

E: What do you recall? O: Nothing. 

E: What is the last thing you recall? O: Sitting in the easy chair. 

E: Does the table recall to you anything? O: The last experiment (i.e., 
one with another observer on the same afternoon). 

E: Does it recall to you any of your own activities? O: Yes, it does. 

E: Those of to-day? O: No. 

E: Do you recall anything else from to-day’s events (1.e., belonging to 
this experiment)? O: No. 

E: What is your general attitude toward what has gone on to-day? O: I 
don’t care. I don’t want to have to remember it, but would like to have it 
told to me. 

E: I will help you to recall. O: I don’t think I want to. 

E: Why? O: It’s like recalling a nightmare—too complicated for trying 
to remember. 

E: Does this mean that you have a disinclination for this experiment? 
O: No. When I wake up I feel relieved as though purged of terrible 
complications. 

E: Have you ever, when not here, revived in memory any of these 
experiments? O: No. I never recall the actual experiences. I think of the 
results. 


Probative character of this experiment: O gathers and inter- 
prets data and uses them to solve a problem—all according to a 
plan. He gathers other information, writes comprehendingly 
about the situation, and executes suggestions. Of all the fore- 
going functions he is in some sense ignorant. Yet afterward he 
is able to recall them all, without having received information, 
meanwhile, from any source outside himself. 

Associative relations among the several stages and subgroups: 
Hyp. 1 seems to have no direct associative relations with any later 
stage. Int. shows the following: The hand-group is dissociated 
from the voice-group completely except that stimuli belonging to 
the former produce uncomprehended effects in the voice-group. 
The voice-group, on the contrary, seems to be pretty closely 
associated with the hand-group. Both are reunified in Hyp. 2, 
and persist by the scantiest associations into Post-hyp. 

Comments: (1) O rationalizes falsely about the origin of 
certain experiences. (2) Stimuli belonging to the hand-group 
produce, in the voice-group, under conditions of appropriate 
mental set, effects whose real meaning in terms of external cause 
is not felt; and this is shown in eight trials out of ten. (3) 


62 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


There is unusual spontaneity in the writing, expressing in a 
variety of ways the impulse to communicate. (4) The associa- 
tive appropriation of voice-group by hand-group, without the 
reverse, is clearly shown in the writing. (5) Int. is clearly not 
one of ordinary hypnosis, though obviously abnormal; it is not 
sufficiently suggestible. Yet, in this experiment, it is close enough 
to merge spontaneously into hypnosis. (6) The associative rela- 
tion of Hyp. 2 with remote hypnotic experiences is a confirmation 
of a relation already known. (7) Certain felt differences 
between Int. and hypnosis are described by O while in hypnosis. 
The former is felt as a state of neither sleeping nor waking, one 
of not knowing much, nor thinking of anything, nor being able to 
think of many things—a state of nightmare-like discomfort 
because of its felt complications: a state of stupidity. Hypnosis 
is not felt as sleep nor yet as waking-—a state of greater comfort 
and knowledge; of mental clearness; of unconcern about things 
not felt as intended for the hypnotized; of indifference to every- 
thing not felt as planned for him by E; yet the hypnosis that 
developed spontaneously in the midst of Int. did not seem in 
retrospect, to O, different from Int. About this, however, he 
speaks with less confidence. (8) O regards himself as truthful 
but stupid in Int. (9) The immediate cause of suggested paraly- 
sis is felt by O to be forgetting how to make the forbidden move- 
ment—an inhibition of associations. This mode of executing the 
suggestion seems to have been spontaneously selected. (10) O's 
memory in hypnosis seems sometimes a little sluggish. He has to 
be plied with questions in order to reveal his actual knowledge. 
Sometimes he seems monosyllabic; sometimes more talkative, 
opening unsuspected vistas of great interest. _ Had they been 
suspected, the neutral method of these experiments would have 
forbidden a direct inquiry of O. (11) The idea of what he may 
be doing in Int. is not sufficient to make O perceive that he actually 
is doing it. He cannot perceive certain acts merely by having his 
attention called to them. : 


SPLITTING THE MIND 63 


EXPERIMENT 13. 
June 10, 1921, 9:30 a.m. 


CW IE C5 OFM = | OT SR he Sf Sy De ie 5 


(Extensive records were made by E also, during the experiment. When 
not specially indicated O’s replies were given orally.) 


Hypnotic STAGE 1: 

Directions to O: When you awaken you will take your seat at the 
automatic-writing table. After you sit down there, no words uttered by 
me will have any meaning for you, until I request that you let me feel 
of your left hand, after which my words will once more have meaning. 
Your right hand, meanwhile, will be able to understand my words and 
to act automatically in accordance with them. (Directions carefully repeated ; 
and then) Do you understand? (Affirmative reply.) 


INTERIM STAGE: 

O wakens and takes his place at the table. 

E: Do you hear me? O: (Silent, writes) No, but I can hear. I won't 
hear. : 

E: Who are you? O: (Silent, writes) G.......... Pietadeeage (the two 
names in full). 

E: What are you doing? O: (Silent, writes) Answering you. 

E: Do you know that you are writing? O: (Silent, writes) No, but I am. 

E: What is the rest of you doing? O: (Silent, writes) Nothing. 

E: If you understand me write 6, if not write cow. O: (Silent, writes) 
6 I can understand | but I think I can’t ...|.. . think I can’t 

At this point R begins to take part in the questioning, being largely 
prompted by E. The writing that accompanied it is inserted below, as there 
is no record, only internal evidence, to show the points at which it occurred. 
: Are you awake? O: Yes. 

: How long? O: Five minutes. 

: Do you know what you had for breakfast? O: Yes. 

: What? O: (Laughing) Scrambled eggs. 

: Do you hear me speak? O: (Silent.) 

: Do you hear me write? O: (Silent.) 

: Who else is here? (The answer if given is missing from the record, 
but O’s next reply indicates that he answered this question correctly.) 

R: Has he said anything to you? O: Asked if I were awake. (This 
probably refers to some question put to O on coming out of Hyp. 1— 
a not uncommon question.) 

: What did you say? O: That I was. 

: Did he say anything else? O: No. 

: Won’t you look at me? O: (Takes no notice.) 

wy Ganmwalaseew Ts) Bias. a selsie 2) Os Yes: 

: Have you looked at him? O: Yes. 

: Why don’t you reply to my questions? O: (Silent.) 

: Why don’t you reply to Dr. B........ ’s questions? O: He hasn't 
ed me any. 

: What is he doing? O: Writing. 

: What? O: Don’t know. 

: Have you any idea what it is? O: No. 

: Would you like to know? O: (Slightly laughing) Yes. 
: Why? O: No reason in particular. 


AMMAAAD 


AMAAMAA 


oo 


as 


AADAA 


64 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


Here E walked in front of O, touched him, and leaned forward to look 
pretty closely into his eyes, but was ignored. 

R: What are you thinking about? O: Nothing. 

E: Can you feel my touch (slapping O’s left hand)? O: (Silent.) 

ReiGan you! teelhDraBisenea es ‘s) touch?) ,OecYes: 

(At this point something is apparently missing from the record.) 

R: Why hesitate in saying no? O: No what? 

R: To last question? O: Don’t know what it was. 

E: Why don’t you reply to my questions? O: (Silent.) 

E: Do you feel my touch (slapping O’s knee)? O: (Silent.) 

Here is the writing produced during the foregoing conversation. 

q .| No I think I can’t because I| can’t understand . . . because 
I can’t | understand I won't hear|I can’t understand so I can’t hear | but 
I really can can really can and am | Yes but I can’t answer 

The writing now ceases during the following test. 

R: Tell me if you feel a touch. O: What touch? 

R: Any touch. 

E then touches various parts of O’s body—legs, feet, left hand, right 
hand and right arm. O responds to all except those on the right hand and 
right arm, which is anaesthetic to the shoulder. (The record omits to 
state whether O’s eyes were open or shut.) The writing begins once more 
with the following questions: 

E: Why don’t you look at me? O: (Silent, writes) Can’t understand so 
can’t hear | but I can understand 

Re Why’ don’t: youtlookat; Dr Bea... * > ? O: Why should I? 

REED rv Be satires is going to pass in front of you and I want you to 
pay attention to him when he does. 

E walks in front of O, kneels to look into his eyes, touches his leg. 
O appears not to look at E but beyond him. 

R: Are you paying attention to him? O: Yes. 

R: Are you looking at him? O: Yes (incorrect to all appearances). 

Then E asks the question as arranged in Hyp. 1. 

E: Let me feel of your left hand. O: (Responds immediately, with 
a pleasant change of expression and a bit of surprise in his manner.) 

E: Do you feel my touch? O: (Eyes open) Yes. 

A test for anaesthesia of the right hand here gives positive results only 
as far as the wrist. 

E: Are you awake? O: Yes. 

E: What have you been doing since sitting here? O: Talking with Joe. 

E: What have I been doing? O: (Voice) I was looking at Joe all 
the time. (Hand writes, now and during the question following) Writing 
and asking questions which I couldn’t | understand so I couldn’t answer |I 
can understand you now but I | can now 

From this point forward, in this experiment, all the writing was pro- 
duced spontaneously, i.e., without intended suggestion by E so far as the 
record shows. 

E: Ves,. buts what-wasel: doing) Oem in.....: « h (as though about to 
speak, but in much hesitation.) 

E: What have I been doing? O: (Voice) I hope this good weather will 
keep up for a while, that we have been having so long, don’t you? (Hand) 
I don’t remember I | wont tell you those things because I \ can’t but of course 
I know 


SPLITTING THE MIND 65 


E: (Evidently caught unawares) Yes—I’d like some rain myself. How did 
you happen to make that comment just then about the weather? O: Well, 
we've been having such good weather lately I hope it will keep up. 

E: What have you been doing while sitting here? O: (Voice) Talking 
with Joe for a while. (Hand) J have been . . . talking to Joe that’s 
right | them | but .. . cause I wouldn’t hear | you so I wouldn’t | answer 

E: What else? O: (Silent.) 

E: What else? O: That’s all I’ve been doing—except thinking. 

E: Thinking? What about? O: Thinking about the weather. Don’t you 
‘think it would be nice to have it clear a while longer? 

E: What has your left hand been doing? O: I don’t remember. 

E: Your right hand? O: I don’t know. 

E: Your left leg? O: I don’t think it has been doing anything (laughs). 

E: Do you suspect yourself of having done anything? O: Such as 
what? 

E: Anything. O: I know I’ve been talking. 

E: Do you suspect yourself of having done anything? O: No. 

E: What.are you doing while hesitating? O: Thinking. 

E: Does this screen make you think of anything? O: I may have been 
writing.’ 

E: Were you conscious of it? O: No. 

E: Now I want you to think of some numbers. Think of counting it— 
LZ eon 0tes, etc: 

E begins to impress various numbers on the anaesthetic hand by touching 
it with his finger the requisite number of times, at the rate of about three 
touches in two seconds, using the following series, determined by drawing 
numbers that had been shaken up together—9, 1, 7, 6, 8, 2, 5, 4, 3. 

E: What number do you think of? O: I think of 9 (correct). 

E: How does it appear in your mind? O: Well, I just thought of it. 

E: Does it appear in the form of images? O: Yes. 

EB sVisuallyre, On Yes: 

E: How? O: (Voice) Brightest in a long string of numbers. (Hand 
produces what may perhaps be taken as two 9’s one under the other; 
-and under both a legible “you”; then) you have been touching my hand and 
tt | makes | me think of those numbers but I don’t know you are touching me 


E: Do you see any of the other numbers? O: Yes, this one (9) being in 
red. 

E: Once more, think of a number (two touches were given, one being 
‘intended, the other accidental and not in the customary manner). 
: (Voice) I thought of 11 (incorrect). (Hand) Two touches. This 11. 
: Think again, please. O: 7 (correct). 
: Again. O: 6 (correct). 
: Again. O: 8 (correct). 
we Acainse ©): 2 (correct). 
: Again. O: 5 (correct). 
: Why any of these? O: (Voice) I just see them. (Hand) No I see 
them because I feel them though I don't Rpot | I feel them I’m telling you 
as well as|I know but I don’t know en| (margin of sheet reached here) 
enough to tell you right . . . 

BerAs in the first} cases..O Yes. 

BE: Any color? O: Red. 

E: Think again. O: 4 (correct). 


SReRcncRckcRe) 


66 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


: Think again. O: 3 (correct). 

: What have you just been doing? O: Thinking of numbers. 
: Anything else? O: No. 

: Are you awake or asleep now? O: Awake. 

Tests for suggestibility here given were negative. 

E: Do you feel as usual? O: Just about. 


eoMesRcoMcs 


E: What is the difference? O: (Voice) I feel sleepy. (Hand) It isn’t’ 
sleepy its because I can’t remember or think | of anything new it makes me- 


so stupid | I think its being sleepy. 


E: Do you think you would be able to take an examination as you 


are now? O: I wouldn’t want to. 

E: Why? O: Too sleepy. 

E: Can you recall everything that has happened while you have been 
sitting here? QO: Yes, everything. 

E: Does it stand out pretty clearly in memory? O: Yes. 

E: What things stand out? O: Talking. 

E: Is that all? (E repeats the question and O hesitates.) O: (Voice) 
Yes, you’ve been touching me and I ’ve been thinking of numbers. (Hand) 
Of course I've been doing more but don’t | like you to ask me because. I 
don’t | know and I don’t like to seem so | stupid, but I think I know every- | 


thing but I don’t. I can’t rememb (runs off paper here) | what I do know: 


even very well | I can’t even remember don’t want to cant. | 


The foregoing writing was in process of production from the ime hes 


pertinent question was asked to the end of the next few questions. 
E: What day of the week is this? O: Friday (correct). 
E: What time of day? O: I don’t know. 
E: Morning or afternoon? O: Morning (correct). 


E: Can you give the time approximately? O: No, well, half past nine- 


(in reality an hour later. O gives the hour at which the experiment 
started). 


At this point, tests for anaesthesia of the writing hand were made, with: 
positive results as far as wrist. The writing thereupon ceased. To O,. 


whose eyes were still closed, E suggested various movements for right 
and left hands respectively. The left hand declined, the right (concealed) 


hand accepted, these suggestions, though O thought both hands were- 


equally under his control. In a single exception the right hand did not obey 
when O, however, thought it had. 

E: Why didn’t you answer my various questions while sitting here? 
O: I did. 


E: Was there no group of questions which you didn’t answer? O: No. 


(with a look of slight surprise at these two questions). 
E: How do you feel? O: A little bit sleepy. 


Hypnotic STAGE 2: 
E: What were you doing at the writing table? O: I was writing. 


E: What were you writing? O: I was writing answers to things you: 


asked me. : 
: For example? O: You asked me if I could hear you. 
: Could you? O: Yes. 


: 


: Why didn’t you say? O: Because you told me to write. 
: Could you really hear me? O: Yes, I heard you. 


i i os 


: What did you say when I asked you that? O: I didn’t say; I wrote.. 


——— 


SPLITTING THE MIND 67 


ia Did pyouvtell Beecess 0.4 (R) that you heard me? O: I was writing 
all the time. 

E: Did you tell him that you heard me? O: Perhaps I said I didn’t 
(correct), but that didn’t count. I was writing you the answer. 

E: Why didn’t it count? O: Because J was answering you by writing 
you the answer. (Much emphasis on the I.) 

E: Who was talking if you were writing? O: (Silent). 

E: Why don’t you answer the question? O: J was answering you by 
writing (again the emphasis). 

E: Then who was answering B.......... by talking? O: Well, it was 
my voice, but I was answering you by writing. 

E: Who controlled your voice? O: I don’t know. 

E: What else was going on at the table? O: You were touching me. 

E: What sort of touches? O: With your finger, your foot, and some- 
thing sharp (the latter reserved here, as always, for the anaesthetic area). 

E: Where did you feel the sharp touches? O: On my right hand. 

E: Why didn’t you tell me so at the time? O: I thought I couldn't 
feel it, but I could. 

E: What other things did I do? O: You were writing and kept touching 
my hand. 
>What else? O: You walked around. 

: Did you notice me doing it? O: Yes. 

: Why didn’t you respond to me? O: I did. 

: Why didn’t you look at me? O: I did see you. 

: Did you look at me? O: No, I couldn't. 

: Why not? O: I don’t know. 

: Think hard. O: It wouldn’t let me. 

: (Not quite catching answer) “It” wouldn’t? O: It wouldn’t let 
me__something wouldn’t—I wouldn't. 

E: Why do you change from “it” to “something” and then to “I’’? 
O: I couldn’t look at you because—— 

E: Because what? (O shows signs of uneasiness, tension in the face 
muscles, while the same question is given three times.) Because I just 
couldn’t look at you, that’s all. 

E: Do you recall any other things you said at the table? O: That I 
said? 

E: Yes. O: I said different numbers (correct). 

E: Why did you say those numbers? O: Because I made them be said. 

E: What do you mean? O: You were touching my hand and I made 
those numbers; I made them be said. 

E: How did you happen to select those numbers? O: I didn’t select 
them, you touched them on my hand. 

E: What if I did touch your hand? O: I wanted to let you know that 
I knew you were touching me. 

E: Did you know at the time you wanted to let me know? O: (With 
emphasis) J knew. 

E: Was there anything that you didn’t know? O: Yes. 

E: What? (O again shows signs of uneasiness and effort. E repeats 
the question.) O: I don’t know what. 

E: You can give no further information about that? O: (After effort) 
I couldn’t say the things I wanted to, nor see what I wanted to, nor do 
what I wanted to, nor hear what I wanted to. Of course, I really could 


Co es os os bd ot 


68 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


do all those things, but I didn’t think so—and I knew it, but they wouldn’t 
let me. 

E: Who were “they”? O: (Half mumbling) I don’t know who they 
were. (Then, clearly) It wasn’t they; it was me, but it wasn’t me—— 

E: If it wasn’t “me” who was it? (Correcting himself) No, you say 
it was “me” and wasn’t “me.” How can that be? O: Well, it wasn’t 
me, but had something to do with me—I don’t know what. 

E: Who is really talking to me now? O: I am. 

E: The same “I” that knew all about these things at the table? O: Yes, 
of course. 

E: While you were at the table, was your “I” answering B..... APS ? 
O: No, I wasn’t. 

E: Was it answering me? O: Yes. 

E: With your voice? O: No, by writing. 

E: What was using the voice? (O shows some effort or uneasiness. 
E repeats the question.) O: I don’t know. 

E: Were the answers given at the table honest answers? O: (Promptly) 
Yes. 

E: The answers given by your voice? O: I guess they were honest. 

E: Why do you speak so guardedly? O: They weren’t true and may 
not have been honest; but I suppose they were. 

E: Were you in doubt of them at the time? O: 7 (Emphasized) knew 
they weren’t so. 

E: Why didn’t you give me the true answers? O: Because I couldn't 
say them. I wrote you the true answers mostly. 

E: Does that experience seem to you just like telling a lie ordinarily? © 
O: (Earnestly) Oh no. J was telling the truth all the time. 

E: Even when you answered with your voice? O: Jt didn’t know any 
better. 

E: Why do you say “it”? O: Because I couldn’t use it (meaning, 
apparently, the voice), I was shut up and could only get out through my 
hand. 

E: Are you answering my questions on the basis of direct memory? 
OUny es: 

E: Are you consciously affected by any theories of Psychology? O: (In 
some surprise) Am I what? 

E: (Repeats.) O: I don’t believe so. 

E: Are you trying to report what you seem to have observed directly 
in yourself? O: Yes. 

E: Has it been hard to give the answers? O: (Quickly) Yes. 

E: Why? O: (Pausing) Because I can’t explain them myself. 

E: What do you mean by “explain”? O: When you ask me why of all 
these different things, I don’t know why. 

E: Have you any doubt about the correctness of your report about the 
facts? O: (Quickly) No. I don’t know that I have said clearly what I 
mean. 

E: Can you compare your experience at the writing table with any experi- 
ence you have had in ordinary life? O: (Quickly) No. 

E: (After a pause) What are you thinking about now? O: Nothing. 

E: Would you like to wake up now? O: (Promptly) I don’t care. 

E: What have you just recently been hearing? O: Your writing— 
mandolin playing (both correct). 


SPLITTING THE MIND 69 


E: When you were writing automatically, did you make anything beside 
letters and words?? O: I tried to make some letters sometimes that I 
couldn’t. 

E: Do you know what you made in place of those letters? O: No 
(doubtfully). Just a scrawl, I guess. 

E: What started you to write from time to time, while sitting at the table? 
O: When you asked me questions that weren’t being answered right. 

E: What was that noise, George (a horse galloping past)? O: A 
thumping. 

E: What may have produced it? O: I don’t know. 

E: Are you asleep or awake or neither? O: Nearly asleep. 

E: Do you seem to yourself to be dreamy? O: No. 

E: Will the “I” present when you wake up be the same as that engaged 
in writing? O: I hope so. 

E: Shall you be able to tell? O: I don’t know. 

E: Will the “I” present when you wake up be the same as that controlling 
your voice at the table? O: I hope not. 

E: Were you uncomfortable at the table? O: I don’t know what you mean. 

E: Did you feel uncomfortable there? O: (Silent, shows signs of 
uneasiness. ) 

E: (Repeats question.) O: I don’t remember. 

E: Do you remember any uncomfortable experiences since you went 
to sleep? O: Yes. 

E: What? O: I couldn’t see what I wanted to; nor say what I wanted 
to; nor sometimes write what I wanted to—then I could only make a scrawl. 

Thinking O had said something about hearing, missed in the process of 
note-taking, E asked the next question. 

E: What did you say about hearing? (In the answer to this question 
there appears a possibly important difference between the records made 
by R and E respectively—important because one of these in form contradicts 
a statement by O made earlier in this stage.) O: (According to R) I could 
hear all I wanted to. I could hear better than the others. (According to E) 
I could always hear everything. (Then, after a pause) I could hear better 
than the others. (This second sentence, alike in both records, probably 
means, “better than I could use the other senses.”) 

E: What prevented your writing what you wanted to? O: The same 
“they” that wouldn’t let me see what I wanted to wouldn’t let me write 
what I wanted to. 

E: About what time is it, do you think? O: I don’t know. 

E: Guess. O. About noon (correct). 

E: Why do you say that? O: You asked me to guess. 

E: By what do you judge? (After a pause) Because I hear different 
sounds—whistles and things that blow around noon. (Such a whistle had 
sounded in the distance.) 

E: Do you feel now just as you do ordinarily? O: No. 

E: What is the difference? O: I’m not awake now. 

E: Do you feel all right? O: Yes. 

E: Would you like to remember all that you have been experiencing? 
O: Don’t know. 


Post-HYPNOTIC STAGE |: 
E: Do you know what time it is? O: About 10 o’clock. (O had been 


hypnotized about 9:30. It was now about 12:00.) 


70 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


E: Why do you say that? O: (Smiling) I don’t know; it seems about 
that time. 

E: How do you feel? O: All right. 

E: Awake? O: Waking up (laughs, then after a pause, spontaneously) 
I feel as though I had been very deeply asleep—miles away. 

E: Do you remember anything that has occurred this morning since you 
have been asleep? O: No. 

E: Try. O: (After a pause) I can’t (with a smile). 

E: Does that table (pointing to the writing table) remind you of anything? 
O: Yes, experiments carried on there. 

E: Anything, occurring this morning, I mean? O: No. 


Hypnotic STAGE 3: 

E: What were you doing at the writing table? O: I was writing answers 
to your questions. 

E: What were some of those answers? O: I was writing that I could 
hear you but couldn’t answer you. 

E: What else? O: I could see you but couldn’t look at you. (If this 
refers to a written answer, as the form of E’s question implies, it is incorrect; 
if merely to events of the preceding stage, as O’s answer to the next 
question implies, it seems to be correct, according to the circumstantial 
evidence. ) 

E: Anything else? O: You asked me why I didn’t answer you. 

O was then wakened, after being given the suggestion that he would 
recall everything when awake. 


Post-HYPNOTIC STAGE 2: 

E: Are you awake? O: Yes. 

E: Do you remember anything? O: Yes, but it all seems like a dream, 
not like anything real. 

E: What do you recall? O: I was thinking about sitting at the table 
writing. (Then, in astonishment) It doesn’t seem real or possible! 

E: What do you recall? O: (Pausing briefly) Why, I was recalling 
the situation there. What a funny one it was! If (smiling) I am remem- 
bering it rightly. It seems weird. 

E: What was it? O: I seemed to be divided in two. I remember thinking 
of one thing and at the same time thinking of another—trying (R’s record 
gives “ wanting”) to do something and not letting myself do it. Terrible 
mix-up! 

E: Which of these are you now? O: Both, I guess (laughing), if I 
remember. I don’t remember much about it. Seems more like a nightmare 
than any real thing. : 

E: Does it disturb you to recall it? O: It’s not pleasant to recall by 
any means. If not interested I wouldn’t. (R notes here in a parenthesis 
that it “had been suggested that he would be interested.” There is no 
other record of such a suggestion in that form.) 

E: Interested in what sense? O: To find out about it; it’s such an 
interesting condition. } 

E: Do you remember anything else? O: Vague generalities—nothing 
much in detail—like a dream. Chief thing that stands out is doing two 
things at once. Horrible to think about! 

E: Why horrible? O: Because you don’t feel that you were yourself. 
Terribly confused state of affairs. (This in a pleasant tone of voice.) 


SPLITTING THE MIND 71 


E: When you have previously recalled things by my help, have they faded 
away? QO: Yes. I remember them only as they were reported to you (i.e., 
as given in a post-hypnotic state). 

E: Do you later remember that they felt horrible; or do they continue to 
feel horrible? O: Usually one thinks of oneself as having judgment and 
fitting things together; and I don’t seem to have been present in that sense 
though present somehow in both the experiences of that time; but it seems 
wholly alien to me. 

E: (Repeats the question.) O: They continue to feel horrible. 

E: Are you unhappy to recall it? O: Yes, it isn’t pleasant though it is 
interesting. 


Probative character of this experiment: O was able to gather 
information, and act upon it, in the way of making discriminating 
replies, at the same time that he was, in some sense, unaware of 
it all, and otherwise occupied. Afterward, however, he was able 
to recall it, though meanwhile receiving no information about it 
from any source outside himself. 

Associative relation among the several stages and subgroups: 
Hyp. 1 seems not to be recalled in Int. by either partial group, 
though experiences in this stage are determined in great part by 
the former. Hyp. 1 is, however, recalled in Hyp. 2; but there is 
no reference to it in any later stage. Of the component groups 
in Int. the hand-group is dissociated from the voice-group, though 
stimuli belonging to the former produce distorted effects in the 
latter. At least a part of the voice-group was included in the 
hand-group. These groups are partly united in Hyp. 2, disappear 
in Post-hyp. 1, reappear in Hyp. 3, and by suggestion in Post-hyp. 
2, but incomplete in details and rather vague, yet in some respects 
more fully than in Hyp. 2, e.g., in recalling discomfort and its 
character. 

Comments: (1) The interference between the partial groups 
of Int. is to some extent mutual. The voice-group can’t see 
(look), remember, hear, get touch perceptions, adequately. The 
hand-group feels itself limited, for expression, to the hand, and 
even there feels hampered. (2) There is an apparent contradic- 
tion in O’s references, during Hyp. 2, to his auditory function in 
Int. (“I couldn’t . . . hear what I wanted.” ‘I could always 
hear everything ”’ or “could hear all I wanted to”’). This con- 
tradictory appearance is removed, if we regard these utterances as 


72 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


referring to different component groups of Int. Such an assump- 
tion is justified by the following facts: O makes such a distinction 
elsewhere in language which he insists on, in spite of its apparent 
contradiction. When he said, “ I could hear all I wanted to,” he 
added a reference to the superiority of hearing to the other sensory 
functions. This utterance seems best explicable by reference to 
the emphasis laid on hearing in the original suggestion (for he 
has no apparent auditory defect in the normal state); and, by 
implication, thus, to belong to the hand-group. (3) The sugges- 
tion that E’s words would have no meaning, though it really left 
room apparently for response to crude hearing of E, developed 
in O a systematized auditory anaesthesia for E, accompanied, 
spontaneously, by a systematized motor defect—the inability to 
look at E. O’s assertion that he was looking at E, being to all 
appearances false, however much it needs explanation, cannot be 
regarded as having any weight against this conclusion. Though 
anaesthesia toward E was limited, he was not wholly ignored. 
His touches on certain parts of O’s body were recognized as by - 
him. O asserted in Hyp. 2 that he could “see” E but could not 
“look” at him. (4) The events of deep hypnosis can, by sug- 
gestion, be made to persist more or less definitely after waking; 
but in the case of this observer they quickly fade and only persist 
thereafter indirectly, as memories of what he once said that he © 
recalled. (5) Some of O’s replies lead one to ask whether he 
was in distress during this experiment. The external signs of 
distress were no greater than the foregoing record shows. O's 
own language must be interpreted in that light. The distress, 
such as it was, is apparently that of felt confusion of ideas. (6) 
The writing hand is evidently guided by stimuli received as it 
moves. (7) Dissociation is indicated in the delusion of motor 
control over the writing hand. (8) The speech of O in Hyp. 2 
and the automatic writing show the felt confusion reigning 
within, by the difficulties with pronouns. “TI” is used indiffer- 
ently in both speech and writing for the voice-group and the 
hand-group. “Me” is used likewise in speech. O seems, how- 
ever, at times to prefer to identify “I” with the hand-group, 
which, to him, seems less “ stupid” for the apparent reason that 


SPLITTING THE MIND 73 


it knows more of what happened and can recall more. Observer 
J. L. B. preferred the voice-group. A tendency to reject some- 
thing from the scope of the “I” is indicated by placing elsewhere 
the inhibitory power, whose effects he has felt. He calls this 
variously “it,” “ something,” “they,” and, almost in the same 
breath, “I,” indicating a felt unity even in the dissociation. It 
seems possible that this line of distinction be drawn between the 
hand-group and the voice-group. (9) The restoration of mean- 
ing to E’s spoken words, by means of the procedure indicated to 
O in Hyp. 1, did not bring to anend Int. The writing continued. 
(10) The hand-group included, at its time of greatest extent, 
touch and kinesthetic sensations from the right hand and right 
arm, auditory percepts of E, and a range of items, identical with 
or referring to a large part, at least, of the voice-group. (11) 
External signs of effort, tension, appeared in four recorded 
instances, of which three, and possibly four, were concerned with 
attempts to answer questions about the voice-group of Int. 
(couldn’t look; didn’t know what it was he didn’t know; didn’t 
know who was using his voice; couldn’t recall whether or not he 
felt uncomfortable at the table. These are all concerned with 
present or past inhibitions). (12) Time orientation is disturbed 
in the latter part of Int. and in the beginning of Post-hyp. 2; it 
appears to be normal in Hyp. 2. 


PAR LTS 
CONFIRMATORY EXPERIMENTS 


SECTION 1. EXPERIMENTS I-V 


(This group of five experiments is defective in minor ways, 
according to our canon, but yet seems to be strictly probative. ) 


EXPERIMENT I. 
Jan. 18, 1920, 4 p.m. 


O2-GOER Fi. Cae, 


(In this experiment the records were made by E, who was the only person 
present besides O.) 


Hypnotic Stace 1: 

When O had been hypnotized, he was told that, on awaking, he would 
be given a sheet of paper on which two numbers would appear that were 
to be added, and that, on being rehypnotized he was to give the answer — 
at once. 

With regard to automatic writing, the record shows no indication as to 
whether any suggestion was given. This omission was discovered when 
the record was being later examined for interpretation, and this omission 
noted thereon—a further note being added to the effect that, according 
to the “clear memory” of E no such suggestion had been given. 


INTERIM STAGE: 

On waking, O changed his seat to one by a table. He was given a sheet 
of paper and told to write the first stanza of “America.” This he did. On 
the upper left and lower right corners of this sheet were the numbers 
78.and 47 respectively. A screen was then so placed as to conceal his right 
hand and forearm, a pencil was put into that hand, and a sheet of paper 
placed conveniently. O was now engaged by E in conversation, during 
which O was asked after a time whether he was doing anything with his 
pencil. Nothing but making crosses and meaningless marks, was the reply. 
Meanwhile the right hand was making the following record in a sprawling, 
interrupted fashion: 78, 47, 78 Page (all the foregoing written in a kind 
of conglomerate mass) | tells wh n (which number) | sum of wh | numbers 
which | are o (one or on?) | would be on| the paper and then | tell you what 
they | were when you asked | the 

At length O was asked to return to the arm chair to be rehypnotized. | 


Hypnotic STAGE 2: 

O gave the correct answer 125 at once, orally. 

E: Where did you get the numbers? O: (After an obvious effort) 
That’s the funny part. I don’t know where they were. I don’t think you 
told me. 

74 


SPLITTING THE MIND 75 


E: How did you get the number (i.e., the sum)? O: First thing that 
came into my head. I don’t think I saw it. 


Post-HYPNOTIC STAGE: 

O stated in reply to general questions that he remembered nothing of 
either trance state nor what numbers were used, nor how he got them; 
but he recalled well the conversation of Int. 

Then occurred the following attempt to remove the inhibition: 

E: Do you recognize the number 78? O: (After a brief pause) Yes, I 
think that must be one of them. Sounded familiar (correct). 

E: Do you recognize 125 (the sum)? O: (After a brief pause) No, 
I don’t believe that was one. 

E: Do you recognize 47? O: I think it was forty-something. It might 
be 46 (partly incorrect). 

E: (Looking steadily at O) Look at me. Now you may think hard and 
recall everything in the experience. O: (After pause and apparent effort) 
No, I can’t recall. 

Placing hand on O’s forehead, E, with a confident manner, tells him 
to think hard and try to recall. Then, after a pause and apparent effort 
to recall, O writes: ‘They were on a paper, on the corners” (correct). 
O substituted writing for speaking at E’s request, as a new observer was 
coming into the room when O was about to make reply. 


Probative character of this experiment: In Int. two dissociated 
groups of mental items are indicated; ‘“‘two,’’ because they are 
different in content, and lead to different expressions in voice and 
hand, respectively; ‘‘ dissociated,” because one at least—the voice- 
group—does not know the meaning of what the other is doing; 
“mental,” both of them, because, according to the standard 
admitted in the ordinary affairs of life, the only one in doubt, 
viz., the hand-group, implies recall of experiences of Hyp. 1, viz., 
the type of task suggested, and of the special numbers, just 
previously seen, by which the task was to be executed. 

There is no objective evidence that the perception of the num- 
bers was co-conscious, nor could O recall the hand-group in any 
later stage. The Memory Test thus fails. 

Associative relations among the several stages and subgroups: 
The voice-group contains items about right-hand movements but 
not their correct meaning, substituting “dots and dashes” for 
what was really significant script. Hyp. 1 seems to be quite dis- 
sociated from this group but not from the hand-group, which is so 
peculiarly affected by the memory from Stage 1 to the effect that 
the answer to the problem is to be given in Hyp. 2, that this hand- 
group cannot quite succeed, even in automatic writing, to reveal 


76 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


the answer in advance. The hand possibly starts to write it but 
stops short. (“sum of wh | numbers which | areo”). In Hyp. 
2 there is a curiously complete suppression of Hyp. 1. The task 
set in the latter is executed, but that it is a task and has been com- 
pleted is not known. The suppression of Int. seems almost com- 
plete; that there were number data seems to be known, but their 
source is not known. It was impossible to discover in this experi- - 
ment whether the actual solution of the problem was performed 
by the hand-group or in a very brief hypothetical transition stage, 
developing at the beginning of the second hypnosis and disappear- 
ing with the attainment of the answer. By O in Hyp. 2 the 
number, i.e., the sum, was felt as appearing without indication of 
origin. These two hypnotic stages were thus in some re 
different in status, not coextensive. 

In Post-hyp. there is partial association with the hand-group of 
Int. I say “partial’’ because of the evidence above that items 
were present in the earlier which were absent in the later. There 
is no manifest lack in the association of the voice-group with the 
later stage. Conversation was recalled. But the suppression of 
both hypnotic stages seems to be complete. 

It is not to be supposed that the full range of association- and 
inhibition-relations among the foregoing stages and subgroups is 
included in the facts just cited. Other tests, omitted in this 
experiment but fortunately included in others, would be required 
for complete determination. We cannot tell whether the number 
perception of Int. belonged to both partial groups or only to the 
hand-group, though a straw pointing to the latter exists in this 
fact, that in Post-hyp. the conversation of the voice-group was 
promptly recalled, whereas the source of the numbers was recalled 
only after considerable insistence by E. This seems to indicate 
that the two bits of experience did not have quite the same status 
in Int. 


EXPERIMENT II. ; 
April 20, 1920, 3:45 p.m. 


LS sn et alt 5 7 1B OFA We Ry Goto: 


(This experiment immediately followed one that was a complete failure 
because O remembered in the Interim Stage the events of Hypnotic Stage 1.) 


SPLITTING THE MIND 77 


Hypnotic STAcE 1: 

Directions to O: You will multiply two numbers. The first is 59; the 
second is the number of white boxes on the shelf opposite you. When 
rehypnotized, you will give the answer at once, raising your hand the 
moment you begin thinking of the problem. (An amnesia suggestion was 
also given. The number of boxes was 6. These were the usual pamphlet 
boxes of a library. The record does not show whether they were a 
specially arranged group, or the set that usually stood among many closely 
packed folders also opposite O. His later reference te folders indicates 
the latter. If so, E cannot, of course, say that O did not already know 
the number of these. There was nothing, however, in the usual course 
of events in the room, to call his attention to them, so far as E knows.) 


INTERIM STAGE: 

E: Tell me what has happened. O: I can’t. 

E: Try. O: (After long pause) It seems as though I knew, but I can’t 
remember anything in particular—much like trying to remember a dream; 
only I usually remember something of a dream; in this case, less. 

E: Have you been doing anything, since you woke up, that has any 
connection with anything that happened in your sleep? O: No. I can 
think of things that might have something to do with it; but don’t think 
they would with what you’d ask me. 

E: What were these things? O: What I was going to do after I left 
here; and other casual things—the folders on the shelves opposite, books, 
etc., because I always think of what I’m looking at. 


Hypnotic Stace 2: 

O raised his hand and after about 2 seconds said 354 (correct). 

E: What is that? O: The answer to the problem. 

E: When did you do it? O: When talking to you. I didn’t know I was 
doing it then. 

E: Why did you raise your hand? O: Because you told me to. 

E: When? O: When I began to think of the problem. 

E: Did you know the answer when you raised your hand? O: I think 
I did. 

E: Why did you wait so long before giving it? O: I didn’t think of it 
right away. 

E: But you did when you raised your hand (not necessarily, of course, 
according to the strict letter of the instructions). O: I don’t remember 
when I raised it (though he seemed to remember that shortly before). 

E: Did you try to recall, before you were rehypnotized, what happened 
in the previous hypnosis? O: Yes. I knew it, but could not recall it. 

E: Were you answering honestly? O: Yes. I didn’t know it. then; 
but I do know now that I did then. I wasn’t conscious of it then. 

E: When did you notice the boxes? (It would have added confirmatory 
detail had E tried first to evoke the knowledge—if it existed—that boxes 
were in question.) O: As soon as I opened my eyes. 

E: Did you know what you wanted of those boxes? O: Not then, but 
now I do. 

E: Why did you forget your experience? O: Because you told me I’d 
forget. 

E: Are you asleep? O: No. 

E: Are you awake? O: No. 


78 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


E: What, then? O: Hypnosis. 
E: What does it feel like? O: Mostly like sleeping. 


Post-HYPNOTIC STAGE: 

E: Do you remember what took place? O: No. 

Probative character of this experiment: Having forgotten the 
plan provided by E, O gathers data according to that plan, while 
in some way unaware of so doing, afterwards recalling both, with- 
out access to any information outside himself; asserting (unveri- 
fied) that he had at the same time been performing co-consciously 
a multiplication, in further execution of the plan; asserting, also, 
co-consciousness about the plan, viz., that he both knew it and did 
not know it. 

The objective evidence shows that the multiplication was indeed 
performed; but not beyond a doubt that it was all done in the 
Interim Stage. 

It is only the taint of suspicion attaching to the source of the 
data that prevents it being included in the probative group of 
Part II. 

Associative relations among the several stages and subgroups: 
Hyp. 1 is very vaguely associated with (‘‘known”’ to) the 
dominant group of Int. and fully with the subdominant group. 
It is also associated with Hyp. 2, but not with Post-hyp. The 
subdominant group of Int. is dissociated from the dominant group © 
and reunited with it in Hyp. 2, while both are dissociated from 
Post-hyp. Hyp. 2 is also dissociated from the latter. 


EXPERIMENT III. 
April 28, 1920, 2 p.m. 


Piro iad Bos Ee Ga bas: Re ves Ws 


Hypnotic Stace 1: 

E gave the following directions to O: When you awake you will be given 
a chance to write automatically. You will be shown a paper containing several 
digits. For each digit you will make the corresponding number of marks— 
circles for black-ink digits, crosses for red-ink digits, arranging them, for 
each digit, in a row beneath the marks for the preceeding digit, and+you 
will not be aware of what you are doing. (This was said carefully twice; 
and then) Do you understand? (Affirmative reply.) 


INTERIM STAGE: 
O does not recall what happened in the preceding stage; cannot tell; 
cannot get it at all. He then takes his place at the writing table. 


SPLITTING THE MIND 79 


E: Do you know what you are going to write? O: No. 

E: Do you expect me to tell? O: Yes, or else I wouldn’t know what to 
>write. 

Test shows that writing hand is not now anaesthetic. 

E: What did you say you were going to write? O: You haven't told me.. 

Paper is now shown to O, containing 397, the 9 in black ink, the other 
digits in red. 

E: Does it mean anything to you? O: No. 

E: Did you do anything with it? O: No, it meant nothing to me. 

E: How do you pronounce it? O: 397. 

O has, however, been making crosses and circles that carry out correctly 
the suggestion given in Hyp. 1. Test shows that no touches on the writing 
hand are referred to it. (Record leaves it in doubt whether these were 
referred to the arm on that side.) 

O is now shown the number 246, the 4 in red ink, the other digits in 
black. 

E: What does that mean? O: 246. It doesn’t mean or recall anything. 

As before, the writing hand has been executing correctly the original 
suggestion. Test shows that the hand is anaesthetic. 

E: What did red ink mean? O:I1 don’t know any more than what 
black ink did. 

E: Think you can’t tell us what it meant? O: No. 

E: It recalls nothing? O: Not a thing. 

E now observes that the hand is writing. 

E: What are you doing with your hand? O: Not doing anything with it. 

E: Now what did black ink mean? O: I don’t know what it meant. 
Didn’t mean anything. 

E: Can you name all the men in your fraternity? (O gives an extended 
list.) 

Tests again show anaesthesia of the writing hand, which has been producing 
the following script: 

I was to make crosses|when there was red ink and | circles with the 
black | and the numbers of | digits I was to make the| numbers equal to 
them | on the paper. (New sheet.) Black ink meant to make | circles equal 
to the number of | digits 

Here are the correct replies to the questions which O has, at the same 
‘time, been declaring his inability to answer, and they are not written in 
response to any suggestion that E is aware of having given. 

The screen being now removed and the writing hand touched in O’s sight, 
he responded to every touch, declaring that this touching of the hand seemed 
like a new experience. 

E: Have you anything more to say about your experience in this 
experiment? O: No. 

E: Have you told all about your inner experiences? O: Yes, practically all. 

E: Can you squeeze out anything else that I might be interested in 
knowing? O: No, not a thing that is at all important. 

E: Have I just asked you your name? O: No. 

E: Sure? O: Yes, absolutely. 

Being pressed to report all he can that is pertinent, O continues. 

O: I remember a feeling of a length of time, of events happening without 
meaning—in the chair before coming to the table. 

E: What events without meaning? O: Those in hypnosis—a sense of 
things happening, but I don’t know what they were. 


80 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


E: Is it ever a bare blank? O: Yes, but not this time. 
E: Are you awake? O: Yes. 

E: Are you sure you are not now in hypnosis? O: Yes. 
Tests for suggestibility fail. 


Hypnotic STAGE 2: 

E: What do you remember? O: I knew what it was all the time; but 
I didn’t know it myself. I knew it, but couldn’t think of it—couldn’t think 
of it at all; but I really knew it all the time. 

E: You were playing a game on us, weren’t you? Deceiving us? O: No, 
for I didn’t know. 

E: You mean that you didn’t, and yet did, know? O: No, I really didn’t 
know it then—couldn’t think of it, but really knew it. Like knowing a. 
name and not being able to think of it; but more so, for in remembering 
a name you know that there is a name, but I didn’t know that there was. 
anything to remember. 

E: Shall you be able to remember when you wake up? O: No, for I 
never do. 

E: Can we believe these statements of yours? O: Yes. 
EeuWhatawouldsyotesave tte lies eee: (a visitor at this experiment 
doubted everything? Could you say anything in answer? O: No, for there’s 

nothing else to say. 

E: Would you like help in recalling these experiences when you wake 
up? QO: I don’t care. 

He was then told to waken when L.......... should rap. Not accepting 
this suggestion, O was told to waken when E should count three (a very 
common mode of wakening in these experiments). Accepted: O thereupon. 
is fully awake. 


Post-HYPNOTIC STAGE: 
E: Can you remember anything that took place? O: No. I feel as though, 
I had been through a nightmare—feel confused, a disagreeable experience. 
E: Why nightmare? O: It felt like trying to run and not being able. 


Probative character of this experiment: The evidence consists: 
in the production of written signs according to complex directions,. 
which involved getting new information from the environment, 
also correct answering of questions, all of which was apparently 
unknown to another mental group, simultaneously present and! 
intelligently active. At a later time O professes to know both 
of these preceding groups of experience, though, meanwhile, hav- 
ing access to no information outside himself. Unfortunately the 
records show no experimental check on the correctness of his. 
feeling that he knew; the Memory Test was not fully applied. , 

Associative relations among the several stages and subgroups: 
In Int. the hand-group has associations with Hyp. 1, while at first 
the voice-group seems quite without such, though later very vague 


SPLITTING THE MIND 81 


memories recur. As between the two subgroups the hand-group 
is dissociated from (not “ known” to) the voice-group, so far as 
we know the items in that group, except that vision and hearing 
seem shared between them, at least to an extent. There were no 
tests as to whether the voice-group is, in turn, dissociated from 
(not “known ”’ to) the hand-group. Hyp. 2 reunited both groups 
of Int.—according to O’s assertion, which, however, was not 
further tested. No tests were made for direct connection between 
the two hypnotic stages. Post-hyp. shows vague associations 
from earlier stages. The present evidence does not permit us to 
decide as between Int. and Hyp. 2. The only reported memory is 
that of a felt inhibition. There is apparently no association with 
Hyp. 1, but O was not pressed particularly on this point. 


EXPERIMENT IV. 
April 30, 1920, 2:30 p.m. 


Re ata Wis La er Ce a SP CAG Dee & 


Hypnotic Srace 1: 

Directions to O: _When you waken you will be given a chance to write 
automatically. You will be shown a piece of paper with digits on it. For 
each digit you will make the corresponding number of marks—dashes for 
those in black ink, triangles for those in red, arranging them in rows under 
each other. You will not be aware of what you are doing, nor will you 
remember this suggestion. (These directions were repeated; then) Do you 
understand? (Affirmative reply.) 


INTERIM STAGE: 

O is able to recall many details of events in the preceding hypnosis— 
events concerned with testing the depth of hypnosis; but he does not mention 
the foregoing directions. Being seated at the table, the right hand behind 
a screen and holding a pencil, he states in reply to a question, that this 
situation does not remind him of anything occurring this afternoon. (This 
was the first experiment of the day.) He is now shown a paper containing 
the number 4296, the outside digits in black, the inner in red. 

E: What does this remind you of? O: Nothing except George’s experi- 
ment yesterday afternoon (describing it). (The two experiments were 
alike in form, but differed in content—1z.e., in the digits selected and in the 
marks to be made by O. Hence, knowledge of the earlier could not insure 
a correct performance of the present one.) 

E: Does it make you think of anything else? O: No. The numbers don’t 
stand for anything to me, either. 

Meanwhile his hand has made 4 dashes, in horizontal series; and, simi- 
larly, below this, 2 triangles, 7 dashes, and 6 triangles, each series under 
the preceding. (The first two are correct; the third should have been 
9 and in triangles; the fourth should have been in dashes.) 


82 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


To O is now shown a paper containing the number 6724, the digits alter— 
nately red and black. 

E: What are you doing with your hand? O: Moving it around. 

E: What are you making? O: Nothing—just moving it around. 

Tests for anaesthesia were negative. 

Meanwhile O’s hand has made the following five groups of triangles 
and dashes: 

(1) 7 triangles, 7 dashes, 2 triangles, 4 dashes (all correct except the 
first). 

(2) (Correct group.) 

(3) (Correct group.) 

(4) (Correct group.) 

(5) (Group showing confusion and not easily decipherable.) 

This perseverance in fulfilling the suggestion by repetition of the execu- 
tion, matches the instances of word- and phrase-repetition in automatic 
writing. Such multiplying of instances was not contemplated in the original 
suggestion. 

O is next shown the marks he had been making. 

E: Do these recall anything to you? O: No, except what George was 
doing yesterday. 

E: Do they mean anything to you? O: I imagine that the triangles mean 
one thing, the dashes another. 

E: Do they remind you of anything in your own experience? O: No. 


BF naghieli STAGE 2: 
: What were you doing when sitting at the table? O: Writing. 
: What? O: (Repeats the directions given in Hyp. 1.) 
: Did you do this? O: Yes. 
: Did I show you the paper on which you made these marks? O: Yes. 
: What did you say? O: 1 imagine it was like George’s experiment 
ventecday (substantially correct). 

E: When I asked if it recalled any part of your own experience, what 
did you say? QO: I said no. 

E: Was that the truth? O: Yes. 

E: Were you aware of what the hand was doing? O: 1 know it was 
moving. 

E: Did you know what it was making? O: No. 

E: How could that be? O: You told me I wouldn’t remember. 

E: You say you remember now what you were doing then? O: (No 
answer.) 

E: Did you know you were writing those symbols? O: I knew the hand 
was moving. 

E: Do you think you did it correctly? O: Yes. 

E: Did you have any doubt while doing it? O: I don’t remember doing it. 

E: What makes you think you did do it? O: You showed me the paper. 

E: How do (did?) you know what the marks meant? O: You told me 
before what I was to do. . 

E: Think hard to see whether you can recall doing it? O: Can’t seem 
to think. 

(There was no Post-hypnotic Stage in this experiment as E proceeded 
at once to use Hyp. 2 as the first hypnotic stage of a new experiment.) 


Co tt tt 


SPLITTING THE MIND 83 


Probative character of this experiment: O executes, according 
to a plan received, a task that involves gathering new information. 
Of all this he is in some way unaware. He afterwards correctly 
states the plan but cannot remember executing it. Had he 
remembered, it would not be of real importance, since E had 
shown O in the Interim Stage what O had done. The memory 
test thus, in part, fails and, in part, cannot be applied, because of 
the events in the Interim Stage. The main part of the proof, 
however, is not hereby invalidated. 

Associative relations among the several stages and subgroups: 
Hyp. 1 is associated in part with each group of Int., and is also 
associated with Hyp. 2. The hand-group is dissociated from 
(not “known” to) the voice-group to the extent at least of the 
meaning both of numbers read and of hand movements executed. 
For the reverse relation no evidence appears. The two groups 
are, apparently, not reunited in Hyp. 2. 

Comments: (1) The errors in execution to be found in the 
automatic writing do not invalidate the probative character of that 
writing. They were too close to the plan to be acceptably viewed 
as having merely a physiological meaning. (2) A strong impulse 
behind the dissociation of hand-group from voice-group seems to 
be indicated in the fact that calling attention to the hand or the 
number is not sufficient—contrary to what is usual in normal 
states—to make clear and vivid the peculiar meaning of either. 


EXPERIMENT V. 
April 30, 1920, 4:15 p.m. 


eG Bo H. Fiery B:! Rela Wwak, 


Hypnotic Stace 1: 

An interruption which took E outside the room for a few minutes after 
the induction of hypnosis left O longer than usual asleep without special 
suggestions intervening. This should be borne in mind in connection with 
O’s felt depth of sleep, as reported later. On returning to the room: 

E: What has been going on? O: There has been talking. (E had been 
in conversation just outside the door.) 

E: Is there any one else in the room? O: Yes (giving R’s name). 

Directions to O: I am going to give you a problem. You will add two 
numbers. The first is 682. When the second is given you will waken 
at once. You will remember nothing but will write the answer automatically. 
(Directions repeated: then) Do you understand? (Affirmative reply.) The 
second number is 947. 


8+ CHARLES T. BURNETT 


INTERIM STAGE: 

O feels that he has been more deeply asleep than ever before; remembers 
nothing, and does not feel that there was anything to remember. He 
seats himself at the table, right hand behind screen, and begins writing 
at once, that hand becoming anaesthetic. 

E: What are you doing? O: I heard my hand writing. 

E: Close your eyes. (O does so; writing stops; anaesthesia remains.) 

E: Look at your right hand? (O does so; feeling is at once restored.) 

E then tries tests for suggestibility. O’s reactions are slow: he says: ; 

“T don’t want to do the things suggested.” Finally, with eyes open, 
he becomes fully docile to motor suggestions; and when E, pointing at O, 
says firmly: “You will go to sleep,” he falls at once into hypnosis and 
returns to the armchair. 

Meanwhile O’s hand had been writing 1629 (correct) about sixty times. 
The digits were usually clearly formed, and usually with a wider space 
between repetitions of the number than between the digits. 16229, 62, 1929, 
16, 1626, 11629 each appeared once, involving, in these errors of doubling, 
omission, and substitution, each one of the four digits. 


Hypnotic STAGE 2: : 

E: What were you doing in the writing chair? O: Writing 1629 (correct). 

E: When did you solve it (the problem)? O: Before sitting down. 

E: Was it all finished before sitting down? O: Yes. 

E: Did you do it after you first woke up (ie., just after waking) ? 
O: Yes. 

E: What wakened you? O: The second number. 

E: (Determined, evidently, to have no doubt left on this point) Did you: 
do the problem before waking up? O: I don’t think so. 

E: What were you doing before sitting at the table? O: Talking—not 
solving the problem then. 

E: Were you awake or asleep when I suggested that you couldn’t raise 
your hand? O: Awake—I felt as usual. 

E: Why didn’t you do the things (referring to inhibitory suggestions) ? - 
O: I didn’t want to. 

E: Did you feel then as you do now? O: No. I had my eyes open. 

E: Could you open your eyes now and stay asleep? O: Yes. 

E: Were you then asleep even though your eyes were open? O: No, I 
don’t think so—until I sat in this chair. 

E: You will open your eyes but stay asleep. (O does so.) Do you see 
this letter in my hand? O: Yes. 

E: What is it? O: S—the first letter in sixteen-forty-two (1642). 

E: Why? O: Only thing it could be. (See introspection below.) 

E: Have you anything more to tell about the problem? O: No. 

E: When you waken you will remember what you have gone through. 


Post-HYPNOTIC STAGE: 

O is able to recall experiences of Hyp. 2. Then: 

E: (Referring to the writing chair) Do you remember what went on 
there? O: Yes (but he finds that he can’t recall). ; 

E: Try again. O: Writing 1629. 

E: Why? O: Because that was the answer to the problem given. 

E: When did you remember? (This obscurely phrased question seems 
to have referred to recalling the task to be done.) O: Before I sat down 
at the table. 


SPLITTING THE MIND 85 


He recalls also what took place, says the record, “in last session,” mean- 
ing, presumably, in the next preceding experiment upon him in hypnosis, 
a day or two before—April 28. 

E: How do you feel when asked whether you are awake or asleep? O: I 
can’t tell—I don’t really think about it. 

E: Do you feel differently now from the way you felt when at the 
table? O: Yes (adding, in reply, probably, to a series of prodding questions), 
I notice myself and feel excited; but I did not, at the table. I feel breathless 
after hypnosis, but not generally (i.e., when hypnosis is not in question). 
I feel rather excited—an objectless excitement—the body excited but not 
the mind. I feel some discomfort. 

He recalls the S in E’s hand—the first letter of sixteen-forty-two. He had 
thought of 1629, which he had been writing, and 1642, a date, both 
beginning with S. 


Probative character of this experiment: O is able to produce 
intelligible writing according to a plan known otherwise to E, 
while engaged in intercourse with E and apparently unaware of 
the meaning of his right-hand movements. ‘ Apparently una- 
ware ” is the most that the evidence permits us to say; and this is 
inferred from the fact that, when asked “ What are you doing?” 
O replies merely, “I heard my hand writing.” He does not 
state specifically that he is aware of nothing else. The Dissocia- 
tion Test was thus not quite properly applied. Later, however, 
he recalls correctly what he was doing, without, meanwhile, having 
access to any source of information outside himself. 

Associative relations among the several stages and subgroups: 
Hyp. 1 is associated with (1.e., “known” to) the hand-group of 
{nt. but not with the voice-group. It is associated with Hyp. 2 
and with Post-hyp. The voice-group of Int. is associated with 
Hyp. 2 and with Post-hyp. The hand group is associated with 
both Hyp. 2 and Post-hyp., and partly dissociated (meaning of 
the writing) from the voice-group; and the two groups are 
reunited in Hyp. 2. Hyp. 2 is by suggestion associated with 
Post-hyp. 

Comments: (1) The kinesthetic system of the writing hand is 
not dissociated from the voice-group. Even the touch system of 
the same hand can be drawn back by the aid of the visual func- 
tion. (2) The abnormal character of Int. is indicated by the 
high degree of suggestibility. (3) The perseveration in the writ- 
ing was independent of the form of the suggestion, so far as E 


86 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


can discover, but O had seen similar results from another observer. 
(4) The problem-solving does not yield any evidence for co-con- 
sciousness. O thinks it was done in Int. and locates it very pre- 
cisely, as between rising from the armchair and sitting at the 
table. E’s questions were not sufficiently directed to this matter. 
So the nature of this highly interesting process is left in obscurity. 
(5) O interprets in Hyp. 2 his inhibitions in Int. as lack of desire. 
This is frequent enough as a delusion in hypnotic phenomena. 
(6) The cause for O’s selecting an S from sixteen-forty-two 
(1642) as a date is obscure. (7) Closing the eyes during the 
act of writing seems to lessen dissociated activity. (8) In Int., 
O feels less aware of his body than in Post-hyp. (9) Spontaneity 
in hypnosis is shown by the selection of a particular letter to be 
seen in the palm of E’s hand; but that choice is evidently closely 
related to an earlier number suggestion of E. 


SECTION 2. EXPERIMENTS A—C 


(This group of three experiments conforms to the Dissociation 
Test, but is defective in other tests of our canon. The probative 
value seems, however, to be high.) 


EXPERIMENT A. 
April 13, 1920. Probably about 3:30 p.m. 


Om) GHle Hi. Be eG eb Re je LAB. 
(This is the third experiment in hypnosis with this observer on this date.) 


Hypnotic Stace: 

O was asked whether there was any poetry which he could repeat from 
memory. He mentioned Coleridge’s Ancient Mariner, saying that he could 
repeat about fifteen verses (?) beginning at Part II. He was told that 
on awaking he was to write them out. 


Post-HYPNOTIC STAGE: 

(Corresponding to the Interim Stage of other experiments, except that, 
in this experiment, there was no second induction of hypnosis.) O responds 
negatively to tests of suggestibility. He does not remember the events 
of the preceding hypnosis. After O takes his seat at the table and grasps 
a pencil, put into his hand behind the screen, E begins: 

E: Does this suggest anything to you? O: No, but I guess I may have 
been told to write something. It is only a guess. 

E: Do you remember what you had for lunch? O answers correctly as 
verified by his fellow boarder, R. 

O is then given a copy of Aesop’s Fables and told to read aloud at a 
designated place. He reads about six pages, clearly and intelligently, laugh- 
ing at jokes. During this time his right hand has been producing the 
following confused and disjointed piece of writing—one of his worst. It 
begins with Part II of the Ancient Mariner, according to the suggestion, 
but skips about from point to point between Part II and Part I. The 
record does not show at just what juncture in the foregoing the writing 


began. 

The sun now . . . east (an error, corrected in next line) | 
right . . . cameheee|. . .|. . . (For the next two legible words 
he goes back three stanzas into Part Ly ClOrOss on ke hn TOHOW <a) 
(He then skips forward to the fourth stanza of Part II.) God’s|own 
Read) iss sheathen jc -\o «,. averred.....4° 2 that. Cincorrect, insertion 
of conjunction) . . | killed the bird . . . mist | (For the next 


two words he goes back many stanzas into Part I.) and snow . . .| 
: (He skips ahead several stanzas in Part II from the point pre- 
viously reached in that part.) |. . . Sun . . . | (Next word is 
apparently a mere repetition. He started a new page with it.) Sun 

mast copper|sky. (This is the confused representation of the following : 


87 


8& CHARLES. T. BURNETT 


“All in a hot and copper sky, the bloody sun at noon, right up above the 
mast did stand.” Then a skip over one stanza.) Water water everywhere | 
(Then reverting several stanzas) and I had (then back to the “ water” 
stanza again, using a wrong but frequently quoted turn) and mot . . .| 
(the next line written from right to left)| . . .|. . 

At the close of the foregoing writing, tests for eueeesvibitiey were negative 
except in the concealed writing hand where they were positive, though O 
supposed he was resisting them successfully there as well. This hand was 
also anaesthetic to the wrist. Once he failed to execute a command with ' 
his right hand, though declaring he had done,so. Once when his right 
hand was touched, in the test for anaesthesia, he located the touch in his 
right hand. Repetition showed him to be in doubt and that his locating 
was inferential. He said it must be his hand since the place touched was 
the end of his arm. Feeling was restored by telling him, when his eyes 
were closed, that after his left hand should have been touched by E, he 
could experience feeling in his right. He could now resist suggestions, 
whether his eyes were open or shut; but his right hand seemed to him 
to feel no different. He stated that he had paid no attention to his right 
hand while reading; that the reading was quite easy; that he was very 
much interested; and that he could remember what he had read, speaking 
of the title (not specially tested so far as the record shows) ; that, further, 
his only knowledge of the act of writing was inferential. 

He was then given the book and told to repeat the previous reading. He 
did so with no apparent difference. A few moments after starting, his 
right hand picked up a pair of compasses lying near and began making 
writing movements, apparently, on the table top. Stopping to turn a page. 
with that hand, he kept it on the book. 

A test with compass points, to determine whether an apparently chance 
thought of numbers could be really determined by the number of pressures 
given to the anaesthetic hand, was a failure. Not a single number reported 
corresponded exactly to the pressures given. The record was as follows: 


Number impressed. Number spoken. 


eb NONO 
on 
_ 


Probative character of this experiment: O wrote fragments of 
once learned poetry, according to a previously arranged plan, 
while in some way not remembering what the plan was, nor aware, 
at the time, that he was writing, nor paying any attention to that 
hand. At the same time he was reading aloud intelligently in a 
manner not apparently different from that shown later when no 
writing or other suggestion was being performed. He appre- 
ciated the meaning of what he was reading well enough to laugh 
at its humor. He felt, as he later reported, that the reading was 


SPLITTING THE MIND 89 


easily done; he could recall it, and was much interested in it. 
He could engage in conversation and recall other facts of recent 
occurrence, all this performance being very different in fluency 
from those others in which the same O was trying to do several 
things at once (see Exp. X, 1, 3-5). The writing-hand system 
was so disconnected from the remaining system that O was 
deluded both as to what did and what did not happen to it. 

The Memory and Perception Tests were not applied. The 
fragmentary nature of the writing indicates that the hypothetical 
co-consciousness was imperfect in function, though, to be sure, 
the illegible parts may really be the representative of the needful 
connecting ideas. 

This evidence does not exclude the possibility that O, having 
chosen in Hyp. 1 the subject of his writing, executed the task 
without mentality. In the light, however, of the satisfactory 
evidences found in other experiments the disconnected function 
in the present experiment may be interpreted as psychic and the 
facts of it thus confirmatory of the hypothesis of co-consciousness. 

Comment: (1) It is a matter of some interest to note that in 
all the experiment O’s right hand felt in no way peculiar. He 
was aware of no. dissociation, no alteration of function. (2) 
Feeling could be restored to the screened hand by suggestion from 
E. (3) The recurrence of automatic writing during the second 
vocal reading was self-initiated—due, perhaps, to its association 
with the earlier reading. The failure to get a record of this was 
opportunity neglected. (4) The felt signs of bodily self-control, 
whatever they are, may exist, apparently, regardless of the actual 
events in the member in question. (5) The failure to influence 
the choice of numbers contrasts with the success of other attempts 
to this end recorded among these experiments. 


EXPERIMENT B. 
May 5, 1921, 2:00 p.m. 
Orme ioab: [BGs (One aR ey Rea Ge Harel: 
Hypnotic Stace 1: 


Directions to O: When you waken go to the automatic-writing table and 
write anything you like. You won’t be aware of anything you are writing. 


90 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


INTERIM STAGE: 

E: Do you feel as though you had had a deep sleep (objectionable as 
a leading question)? O: Very much so. (In Hyp. 1 had occurred the 
experience reported at the end of the record of May 3, 1921.) 

O took his place at the table, and put his right hand behind the screen, 
talking as he did so about the students’ celebration of the preceding night. 
This continued some minutes as a conversation between O and E. O was 
slow to begin writing—or E to note it. At length E observed that O was 
making writing movements with his fingers, which had not yet grasped’ 
the pencil. Thereupon E slid the pencil along until it came into contact with 
O’s hand. Then O promptly picked it up and began writing at once.. During 
a short pause in the conversation, before the pencil-writing began, a far- 
away look settled briefly on O’s face. His hand wrote as follows: 


What are you thinking about|. . . what are you thinking about | why 
hp I want|to be asleep. I don't like to|I know . . . I know 
what|. . . what I am writing about|I am happy when I’m asle (runs 


off paper) | happ asleep—happy asleep | happ aslep. when I am| aslep | whe 
when I’m | 

The following dialogue, occurring after the conversation aforesaid, 
influenced the writing: 

E: Are you awake or asleep? O: Awake—pretty much so; (and, in reply 
to more questions) not wide awake; not so wide awake as when I first 
came into the laboratory. 

Tests for anaesthesia of writing hand with a knife-point and of other 
parts of the body with E’s finger gave positive results for the hand in 
question. O could not control that hand, though he thought he could; it 
accepted E’s suggestions, while the left hand did not. 

E: What have you been doing? O: Talking to you about things 
(enumerating all the topics). 

E: What else? O: You have been touching me. I have been doing, or 
not doing, the things you told me to (referring to tests of motor control, 
evidently). I’ve been sitting in the chair. 

E: Is that all? O: Yes, but I can guess a lot. 

E: Well, guess. O: That’s hard work, too. 

Lack of time made E hurry on without following this lead further. 


Hypnotic STAcE 2: 

E: What were you doing at the desk (table was meant)? O: Writing. 

E: What else? O: You were touching my hand with a pin or something. 

E: What were you writing about? O: Nothing in particular. You told 
me to write anything I wanted to. 

E: Did you? O: Oh yes, but I didn’t want to. 

E: What did you write? O: Happy while I was asleep (correct). I wrote 
the question you asked me first (ie., just before O was wakened from 
Hyp. 1, viz: “ What are you thinking of now?” (correct); what I was 
writing at the table (viz: “I know what I am writing about.” The 
exact meaning of this reference in the record is not clear. Perhaps this 
clause, taken here as a third identification, should rather be considered 
explicative of the second assertion. In that case it would be equally a 
true report of facts, since E had asked, in Hyp. 1, this question also: 
“What did you write about? ”). 


Post-HYPNOTIC STAGE: 
E: Do you remember anything about what has happened? O: No. 


SPLITTING THE MIND 91 


E: Do you remember about sitting at the table? O: Guess so. I don’t 
know whether I remember it or whether you suggested it (referring, it 
seems, to the possibility of a post-hypnotic suggestion). 

E: Do you remember anything that happened while at the table? O: No— 
just talking—don’t remember what about. 

E: Is that all you remember about it? O: You were talking about the 
baseball trip. 


E: Were you talking about it, too? O: Yes. 

E: Do you only remember talking? O: Yes. Oh! you were telling me 
I couldn’t do things and I could. That’s all I remember. 

Probative character of this experiment: O wrote on topics spon- 
taneously chosen, while, in some way, unaware of so doing as 
well as of a special stimulus applied to the writing hand, and, 
indeed, occupied at the same time with animated conversation, 
yet he recalled afterward the content of the writing and the special 
character of the stimulus, though meanwhile without any source 
of information other than the original experience. 

This evidence is called confirmatory rather than probative, 
because, by itself, it does not exclude the possibility that O chose 
his topics in Hyp. 1, executed the writing without mentality, and 
recalled in Hyp. 2 merely what he had known in Hyp. 1. 

Associative relations among the several stages and subgroups: 
Whether Hyp. 1 was associated with (‘““known” to) the voice- 
group of Int. was not tested; this connection existed with the 
hand-group; also with Hyp. 2, but not with Post-hyp. In Int. 
the hand-group was dissociated from the voice-group, though not 
completely, it seems (“I can guess a lot’’—but “that’s hard 
work, too,” from the voice-group). The hand-group persisted 
in Hyp. 2. The only evidence that the unity of the partial groups 
had been restored is in the fact that the voice function was 
acquired by the hand-group. No test was made as to the reten- 
tion of the voice-group experiences. In Post-hyp., however, only 
the voice-group survives. There is no trace of Hyp. 2. 

Comments: (1) The peculiar feeling in Int. of being awake 
but not wide awake appears again. (2) Though the control of 
the writing hand was actually lost, it did not seem so to O, who 
had the illusion of control over it. It is regrettable that O was 
not questioned in Hyp. 2 in such a way as to discover whether 
there existed any latent knowledge of the real situation. (3) O 
preferred the hypnotic sleep to the dissociated functioning of Int. 


92 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


EXPERIMENT C. 
May 21, 1920, 2:45 p.m. 


O: F. W. A. ee Gra Peete Re Et Wes 


Hypnotic Stace 1: 

Directions to O: When you awake you will have a chance to write 
automatically. You will be shown a paper with digits. For each digit you - 
will make the corresponding number of marks, circles for black-ink digits, 
crosses for red-ink digits; arranging them in order under the preceding 
marks. You will not remember anything. 


INTERIM STAGE: 

The record does not show at what point in this stage O took his place 
at the table. The usual conditions of automatic writing were maintained, 
as shown in the conversation of Hyp. 2. 

E: What do you remember? O reports correctly experiences that were 
tests of the depth of his hypnosis. ‘Then after I sat down I woke up.” 
(The writing suggestion is evidently not recalled.) 

E: Why did you wake up? O: I don’t know. 

OQ is now shown the number 246, the 4 being in red, the other figures 
in black. 

E: Do you remember it? O: No. 

E: When you were sitting with hands clasped, did you actually struggle 
to take them apart (referring to a suggested disability in Hyp. 1)? O: Yes. 

E: What does it feel like to be hypnotized? O: Somewhat like going ~ 
to sleep. 

E: Do you notice other things beside my voice? O: Naturally. 

E: Do you pay attention to them? O: No. 

E: Did you feel different in hypnosis from out of hypnosis? O: I do 
somewhat, I don’t know exactly how. I don’t notice anything when I’m 
hypnotized except what I’m told. 

E: Are you asleep or awake? O: Awake. 

Tests for suggestibility are here negative. 

E: What are you doing now? O: Answering questions. 

E: What is your right hand doing? O: Moving about a little bit. 
I imagine the pencil is making chicken marks on the paper. (He is evidently 
not aware of the meaning of what his hand is doing.) 

Tests showed that the right hand was not anaesthetic. Meanwhile that 
hand had been writing. It did not produce what O was told to do, but 
something that clearly had been determined by the suggestion. That writing 
follows: 

I (might be “2”) | make (might be “ woke”) | nswer in 26|O XO | 246. 

By the most favorable reading of the foregoing, it appears that O’s hand 
is trying to show what it must do to carry out the plan on the basis of the 
number presented. The respective colors of the several digits have been 
noted and their bearing upon the execution of the plan. As the digits are 
black, red, black respectively, so the hand writes in effect: I make (a) nswer 
in (—Let’s see!) 2 6 (both black—that means circle, cross, circle) O X O 
(that’s the order for) 246. 

The writing stops at the point where O has determined the mode of 
applying the code; it does not actually carry out the suggestion according 
to that code. The cause of this interruption is not apparent. If, however, 


SPLITTING THE MIND 93 


the foregoing interpretation be tenable, we have a piece of evidence of equal 
value with the full execution of the suggestion; and showing the hypothetical 
co-consciousness at a different phase of its activity from any shown by the 
deciphered parts of the writing elsewhere presented in these experiments. 


Hypnotic STAGE 2: 

E: What happened in your first hypnosis this afternoon (1.e., Hyp. 1)? 
O: I don’t know. 

E: Have you been hypnotized this afternoon before this? O: I don’t 
think so. 

E: What happened just before you went to sleep? O: I came to the 
laboratory—read a book on dreams—you came late. I sat in your chair 
with my arm behind the cardboard (1.e., screen). 

E: Were you doing anything when in the chair? O: My hand was making 
scratches on paper, probably automatic writing (but he declares a little 
later that he was writing nothing). 

E: Does 246 remind you of anything? O: Yes, you showed it to me. 

E: Does it’ make you recall anything else? O: A problem I did the 
other day for Henry (the present R). 

(R-asks:) Does red ink make you think of anything? O: The 4 was 
in red ink (correct). 

E: What makes you think you were automatically writing? O: That’s 
the way to do it. 

E: Did I tell you to do any automatic writing? O: (Emphatically) No. 

E: Do you remember the floor swaying (an hallucination of Hyp. 1 
recalled in Int.)? O: No—when? I said something about it (correct). 

E: When? O: Just before I was hypnotized (1.e., the second time). 
I don’t remember experiencing it. 

E: What did you do before going to the writing table? O: I put dream 
book back and came back to the chair I am in now (always used for 
hypnosis). 

: What did you do when you sat down in the hypnotic chair? O: Nothing. 
: What was I doing? O: I have forgotten. 

: What did you write automatically? O: Nothing. 

: You said that you did. O: Did I? I don’t know what it was. 

: Do you remember a problem you had to do? O: When? 

: Did you have one? O: Not this afternoon (correct). 


col como mes Meo mes| 


PosTt-HYPNOTIC STAGE: 

E: What do you remember? O: Talking to you—don’t know what I 
was talking about. Something about the dream book (correct). I don’t 
remember what. Something about chicken (correct—‘ chicken marks”). 

E: What did you say about it? O: Don’t remember. 

E: What else? O: 1 remember hurting finger with ring—your sitting 
down over there at the table—that I stood up, though I’m not sure. (Then, 
with emphasis) That’s all I can remember. Very vague—all of it (applying, 
according to indications below, to Hyp. 2). 

E: How many times have you been hypnotized? O: Two. Id almost 
say three—I’d like to say it. (Is this a reference to some felt peculiarity 
of Int.?) 

E: Why? O: I don’t know. 

E: What happened between the two hypnoses? O: I sat at the table 


94 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


and did automatic writing, but I guess not automatic writing, for my hand 
was not anaesthetic. Probably just chicken scratches. 

E: Do you usually make chicken scratches? O: Yes, a common thing. 

E: Can you remember what happened in the first hypnosis? O: Yes 
{recalls correctly). 

E: Which do you remember more clearly, the first or the second hypnosis? 
O: The first. The second is only vague; I felt way off, as though floating 
in air—a vast nothingness around me. I have felt that same thing some- 
times when going to sleep. My skin felt numb when I woke up. I feel ' 
all right now. j 


Probative character of this experiment: lf we are allowed to 
take the most favorable interpretation of the script, we have here 
evidence that lacks only the Memory Tests to be strictly probative 
according to our canons. O being unaware of the meaning of 
the script he is producing, and forgetting the original plan pro- 
vided by E, gathers and interprets data according to that plan, and 
expresses by his script what he is doing. At the same time he is 
taking an intelligent part in a conversation, largely on a different 
theme. He does not, however, carry out E’s plan in its entirety, 
nor can he afterwards recall either that plan or the meaning of 
the script. ) 

Associative relations among the several stages and subgroups: 
Part of Hyp. 1 is associated with (“ known” to) the voice-group 
of Int.; another part with the hand-group. Dissociated from 
Hyp. 2 it reappears in Post-hyp. The voice-group of Int. is. 
associated with Hyp. 2 and Post-hyp., while the hand-group does 
not reappear. Hyp. 2, felt as very deep, is but slightly associated 
with Post-hyp. 

Comments: (1) The vigor of dissociation in Int. is shown by 
the fact that neither the critical number nor talk about O’s right 
hand suffices to bring to his mind the suggested plan and its 
execution. (2) The absence of anesthesia from the writing hand 
shows that the dissociated group has drawn less than usual upon 
the dominant group. 


SECTION 3, EXPERIMENTS K-—OQ 


(This group of seven experiments is defective in the Dissocia- 


tion Test.) 
EXPERIMENT K. 
April 15, 1920, 3:45 p.m. 


6 NVR Rl CA eS OF G7 OARS pia ot Ris J eves 


The third experiment (second in hypnosis) on this observer during this 
session. 

Hypnotic Stace 1: 

Directions to O: You will multiply two numbers. The first is 287; 
the second is the number of wooden spindles in the chair opposite you (not 
visible, of course, until he was wakened. E cannot say that O had never 
counted these spindles, but E who saw the chair much more frequently 
than O had to count them for this experiment). You will give the answer 
when rehypnotized, raising your hand as soon as you begin to think of 
the problem. (Directions repeated; then) Do you understand? (Affirmative 


reply.) 


INTERIM STAGE: 

E: Can you recall anything from this recent hypnosis? O: No. 

E: What did it seem like? O: I have no cue to begin with. I don’t 
feel that there is anything there to put my finger on. 

He was then asked if various objects in the room reminded him of 
anything; and then: 

E: Does that chair (the critical one) recall anything? O: Yes—sitting 
there in the previous experiment, seeing it when coming into the room. 

E: Anything else? O: No. 


Hypnotic STAGE 2: 

(But see below for the probable time of its beginning.) O showed no 
tendency to do or say anything despite the original suggestion; and so E 
began to question him. 

E: What is it? O: What is what? 

E: What is the answer? O: Answer to what? 

E: Recall what took place in the recent hypnosis. O: I don’t remember 
anything of it. 

E then began to suspect—what proved to be the fact—that O had not 
been rehypnotized. He was still in the Interim Stage, presumably. The 
following introspection concerning his psychic state was written by O 
either at once or, more probably, at the close of the expreiment: “On 
the unsuccessful attempt to induce hypnosis I looked at the shiny ring 
held above my eyes until it seemed much easier to close my eyes than 
to keep them open. My eyelids felt very heavy as they always do at 
this stage. So I closed my eyes, but was by no means hypnotized. As well 
as I can remember, in previous experiment closing my eyes does not mean 
I am hypnotized. Then (i.e., in the experiment which occasioned this intro- 

95 


96 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


spection), ‘drowsy, sleepy’ was suggested, which does make me feel that 
way; but never do I lose consciousness of my environment or of myself. 
As nothing more was suggested, I did not fall asleep at all. I think that 
the suggestions ‘now go deeper’ and ‘you’re going down, down, down,” 
etc., must be the ones that finally induce hypnosis; as I lose track of 
space, body, etc., but feel as a particle in a vast space without top, bottom, 
or limits. Usually at first I have a falling sensation, generally accompanying 
the word ‘down,’ and at last forget all direction.” 

Hypnosis being finally induced, O raised his hand and said “1496” 
(incorrect, but see below). ' 

E: Why did you say that? O: It’s the answer to the problem. 

E: What problem? O: 187 times the number of rounds (spindles) in 
the chair opposite (O seems to have misunderstood the first number as 
given, which was 287. With the data he alleges, his answer to the problem 
is correct, the number of spindles being 8). 

E: When did you get the number of rounds? O: While talking with you. 

E: Did you know you were looking at the chair particularly? O: No. 

E: When did you do so? O: Almost immediately upon opening my eyes. 

E: Do you remember anything else that happened? O: Yes, being given 
problem, going to table, reading and writing (all in an earlier experiment). 

E: Do you remember anything outside the hypnotic sleep? O: Yes (going 
on to enumerate various topics of conversation occurring that afternoon). 

E: You will remember everything that has happened during this experiment. 
Do you think you can? O: I don’t know. 

E: Why? O: Because I always forget. 


PosTt-HYPNOTIC STAGE: 

E: How do you feel? O: Different from the hypnotic state.. 

E: What do you remember? O: Giving the answer to a _ problem 
(correct). 

E: What was it? O: A number in four figures—l14—something (correct 
so far as it goes). I can remember things in time sequence only (meaning 
not clear). 

E: What else do you recall? O: Telling problem and how I got the 
answer (correct); but I don’t remember the actual getting of the numbers. 
E: How were the numbers present in your mind? O: I saw them. 

E: Do you remember raising your hand? O: No. 

E: Do you recall anything else? O: I remember being told to remember 


(correct). 


Probative character of this experiment: Having forgotten the 
plan provided by E, O gathers data according to it, while in some 
way unaware of so doing—at least not being reminded of it 
immediately afterward by having his attention called to the source 
of data. Yet later he recalls what he did, without having had 
access, meanwhile, to any source of information outside himself, 
and states—what is important but objectively unverified—that he 
obtained the data while talking with E, not knowing that he was 
looking particularly at the source of the data. 


SPLITTING THE MIND 97 


The possibility is not excluded by objective evidence that O 
obtained the data in an alternating state, 1.e., one forgotten imme- 
diately afterward. The evidence O offered from introspection 
may conceivably have been by itself an illusion of memory. The 
solution of the problem may have taken place after the beginning 
of Hyp. 2 and, in turn, requires no assumption of co-consciousness. 


Associative relations among the several stages and subgroups: 
Hyp. 1 is dissociated from (not “ known ”’ to) the dominant group 
of Int., but causally connected with the hypothetical subdominant 
group and Hyp. 2; and dissociated, again, from Post-hyp. The 
dominant group of Int. is associated with Hyp. 2, and partially 
with Post-hyp., if, as is possible, the introspection was written at 
that time. -O could not, however, recall in this stage the act of 
getting the number of spindles, though he had recalled it in a 
preceding stage. The subdominant group is dissociated from 
(not “known” to) the dominant group at least immediately 
after it has functioned. It is associated with Hyp. 2 but dissoci- 
ated from Post-hyp. By aid of a suggestion, Hyp. 2 is partially 
associated with Post-hyp. 


EXPERIMENT L. 
April 29, 1920, 4 p.m. 


Oye raes VV AL, Bia Cnr kn Ste RG. Bi: 


Hypnotic Stace 1: 

Directions to O: You will multiply two numbers. The first is 473; the 
second is the number of spindles in the back of the chair opposite (not 
visible, of course, while O is in hypnosis, because his eyes are closed). 
When rehypnotized, you will give the answer immediately, raising your hand 
‘as soon as you think of the numbers: (Directions repeated; and then) 
Do you understand? (Affirmative reply.) 

An amnesia suggestion also for the task in question was given. The 
number of spindles was 8—or 9—see below. E cannot say that O had no 
knowledge of this number prior to this experiment, but of his probable 
ignorance see “ Directions to O” of Exp. K (15 April). 


INTERIM STAGE: 

E: Can you remember what happened? O: Yes (proceeding to enumerate 
correctly various occurrences during E’s attempt to test O for depth of 
hypnosis, including some introspective account of these experiences; then) 
Seems as though there was something else, but I can’t think. 

E: Did your sensory experiences feel real? O: Yes. I feel as though 
tthere was something else to remember that I can’t recall. 


98 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


E: Would five dollars be an inducement to remember? O: Yes—more 
material. (But E did not make the offer. It should also be noted that E 
failed to develop an effective line of questioning to test whether the execu- 
tion of the suggestion was a dissociated function.) 


Hypnotic STAGE 2: 

O raises his hand; shows effort, knits his brows, etc.; then says “four, 
three, five, seven.” (Incorrect, but see below. The error does not seem to 
invalidate the experiment, as, despite this, the answer so closely follows the 
plan.) 

E: What is this? O: Answer to the problem. 

E: Why did they come in that order? O: Came in my mind that way. 

E: (Wishing to make sure) How did they come? O: 4, then 3, then 5, 
then 7. ; 

E: How did they appear? O: I saw them as white figures on a dark 
background. They just came out (i.e., apparently without effort on O’s 
part). 

E: Did you make them come out? O: No, they just came. 

E: How did they happen to come? O: I don’t know; they just came. ~ 

E: How many spindles were there? (A blunder in questioning. The 
fact that spindles had been in question should have been evoked. This 
blunder partly interferes with the application of the Positive Memory Test.) 
O: 9. (Incorrect according to R’s record. The laboratory has a 9-spindle 
and an 8-spindle variety of chairs; and it is just possible that R made an 
error. On O’s count of the number, the correct answer is 4257, instead of 
4357 as he gave it. These errors do not seem to invalidate the experiment, 
because the original plan is so obviously involved in spite of them.) 

E: Did you do multiplying? (Another blunder in questioning, of the 
same type as the foregoing.) O: I don’t think so. I didn’t multiply them. 

E: Is your answer to the problem correct? O: Yes. 

E: How do you know? O: It came to me that way. 

E: Did it take any effort on your part? O: I don’t think I multiplied 
them. 


E: Did you feel any effort? O: There seemed to be an effort just before: 


I saw the figures. 
E: What sort of an effort? O: I could feel it in my head. 
E: When did you get the number of spindles? O: I don’t know. (But 
see answer to same question below.) 
E: When awake last, did you remember this problem? O: I don’t know. 
E: Did you know what that “something” was, when you said that some- 


thing was there which you couldn’t recall? ©O: I don’t remember. (But. 


see answer to same question below.) 

E: Do you remember anything about your state when last awake? O: 5 
know who was in the room. You asked me what I remembered, and I told 
you (saying this with difficulty); but I told you there was something I 
couldn’t seem to recall (correct). 

E: Why couldn’t you recall it? O: I couldn’t think of it. 

E: Do you know what it was? O: About the problem you gave me to- 
do. (Could this have been objectively verified—as of course it could not— 
it would be important evidence of co-consciousness. ) 

E: Are you asleep or awake now? O: I think I am awake; I don’t feel 
asleep. 


SPLITTING THE MIND 99 


E: But when you talk you will stutter. (O, thereupon, cannot speak with- 
out stuttering, showing that he is really in hynosis.) 

E: Was that experience like being awake or asleep? O: I don’t feel 
awake or asleep. 

E: How do you feel when asleep? O: I don’t think when asleep. 

E: Are you now? (This too abbreviated sentence may have referred to 
the act of either sleep or thought.) O: Yes. 

E: Do you hear these voices, noise of train, etc.? O: I hear you. I don’t 
seem to hear anything (else) but rustlings. (A student visitor in the room 
at the time was then made to address E by name. O heard him speak, and 
adds:) It seems as if I was in a fog—not awake. (He takes in a breath 
with a shiver.) 

E: Do you feel cold? O: My hands are. 

E: How did you get the number of spindles? O: I suppose when I 
looked at the chair. I don’t remember looking at different parts of it. 

E: Did you hunt for the spindles? O: No. I wouldn’t have any reason 
to. (Could O, from his previous acquaintance with the laboratory, have 
known in advance of the Interim Stage, the number of spindles, making it 
unnecessary to asstime any attempt to get this fact in this stage? This 
possibility is not formally excluded. It is formally possible that participants 
in an experiment a fortnight before, when the same choice for multiplier was 
used, may have mentioned it to O. With his honesty beyond question, 
however, it seems impossible that he should have replied as he did to ques- 
tions in the Post-hypnotic Stage, without also mentioning such information 
already obtained, if he possessed it. It is regrettable indeed that the con- 
ditions of this experiment did not formally exclude all these possibilities. 
And may we not also urge that O’s inability to recall such information in 
the Post-hypnotic Stage was merely a case of dissociation? This is a 
gratuitous assumption not warranted by anything known to E about that 
stage. The belief seems thus valid that the alleged possibilities are not 
real.) 


Post-HYPNOTIC STAGE: 

E: Can you remember what has happened? O: Yes—giving you a number. 

E: What sort of a one? O: I think it was 4537 (really 4357). You asked 
how I got it and how I got the number of spindles in the chair. 

E: Does it seem easy to revive these memories? O: Some things stand 
out more than others. I can’t seem to remember everything. It seemed as 
though the numbers drew across in front of my eyes. They didn’t just 
appear suddenly; they semed to move across in front of me. 

E: Do you recall about the chair spindles? O: I can’t remember when I 
got them or why I should get them. I remember looking at the chair, but 
I didn’t pay any attention to it. 

O adds the information that he is not good at arithmetic. 


Probative character of this experiment: O gathers data accord- 
ing to a plan furnished by E, though in some way not aware of 
the plan. Later he recalls that there was a plan, which in Int. 
he was vainly trying to remember. He recalls the data, without 
access to sources of knowledge outside himself; also that he 


100 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


looked at the source of the data, but paid no attention to that 
object and did not look for the data. 

There is no objective evidence that the actual gathering of the 
data was a dissociated function; nor is there evidence that O 
afterward recalled the gathering of the data or what special treat- 
ment he gave them. The subjective evidence of dissociation (1.e., 
the evidence from memory) is definite, but that might have been 
a mere physiological disconnection, so far as this experiment 
shows. It is only in the light of other experiments that the facts 
here brought forward can be regarded as properly explicable in 
terms of co-consciousness and so as confirmatory of that 
hypothesis. 

It should be noted that but for E’s blunders and omissions 
stronger evidence might have been available. 

Associative relations among the several stages and subgroups: 
Hyp. 1 is almost completely associated with (“ known” to) Int., 
the exception being the group of items concerning the problem— 


a group included within the amnesia suggestion. This group was - 


represented by a disconnected function in Int. but yet was not 
wholly dissociated. O was aware of something there to be 
recalled. Hyp. 1 is also associated with Hyp. 2. There is no 
evidence as to its survival in Post-hyp. Int. is associated with 
Hyp. 2 and its dissociated functions in part reunited, but only the 
dominant group persists in Post-hyp., so far as the evidence goes. 
Hyp. 2 is well associated with Post-hyp. 

Comments: (1) The mode of solution of the mathematical 
problem is left an interesting puzzle. O has no introspection that 
sheds light on this. The performance seems to have taken place 
at the beginning of Hyp. 2, and, so far as the evidence goes, one 
is left to speculate as to whether it was a purely physiological, or 
also a mental, process. The end-product alone comes into view, 
as visual images of the digits that make up the answer. The 
introspection leaves it in doubt as to whether at any time the 
digits were all present together; and, if so, as to whether they 
were arranged in the space order usual to the four place number 
intended. (2) It is apparent that a greater skill in questioning 
than E displayed might have cleared up some of the obscure 


SPLITTING THE MIND 101 


places in the experiences here under examination. (3) O’s 
attempt to describe what hypnosis feels like shows uncertainty and 
is contradictory. (4) The persistent inability to recall the act of 
getting the number of the spindles may be due to the particular 
form of the amnesia suggestion in Hyp. 1. The precise words in 
which this suggestion was given are not a part of the record. At 
first the entire group of items to which the suggestion was 
intended to reply was inhibited. Why, later, this item alone 
should remain persistently hidden is so far inexplicable. (5) O’s 
depth of hypnosis was not such, in this experiment, as to insure 
amnesia for its events, without the aid of a special suggestion to 


that effect. 
EXPERIMENT M. 
May 4, 1920, 1:30 p.m. 


The O was P. J. The record is not clear as to E and R. G. E. H. was by 
turn both E and R. H. H. assisted as E; and so probably did some one else. 


Hypnotic STAGE: 

Directions to O: You will multiply two numbers. The first is 85; the 
second is the number of shelves in the book-case to the right of the door 
(facing him as he sat). When you are re-hypnotized, you will give me the 
answer at once, raising your hand the moment you begin to think of the 
problem. (The number of shelves was 12. It is probable, though not certain, 
that this number was unknown to O, as the room was nearly surrounded by 
high cases, having varied numbers of shelves and O had but rarely been in 
the room.) 

INTERIM STAGE: 

O remembers the voice of the hypnotizer and the stroking of his own fore- 
head but not the problem. (The record mentions no attempt to watch O’s 
behavior during this stage, nor to test whether he knew he was learning 
the number of shelves.) 


Hypnotic Stace 2. 

O delayed so long to give the answer that he was asked—“ Have you any- 
thing to tell me?” O replies “1020” (correct). At first, in answer to 
questions, he showed ignorance of both problem and its relation to the book 
shelves; but finally he remembered them and 85. He got the number of 
shelves while awake, he said; but he did not then know he was counting 
them nor anything about the problem. 

Post-HYPNOTIC STAGE: 

E: Why did you wake when you did? Just felt like it. 

E: Can you remember anything that happened? O: I remember saying 
85 and your telling me to wake up. 

E: Why didn’t you wake up when Dr. B........ told you to? O: It 
didn’t penetrate; I didn’t feel like doing it. (Dr. B........ came into the 
room while the experiment was in progress.) 

E: What else do you remember from the second hypnosis? O: Nothing. 

E: What do you recall from the first hypnosis? QO: Nothing. 


102 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


Probative character of this experiment: According to a plan 
provided by E, O obtains a number by counting objects, whose 
number he probably did not already know. Though forgetting 
the plan he gets the number; but whether at that time he knew 
what he was doing we cannot by objective evidence say. Yet, 
afterwards, in recalling, without any outside assistance, that he 
had gotten it, he asserts that he had done so unconsciously and 
was also then unaware of the problem. 


EXPERIMENT N. 
April 13, 1920, 1:45 p.m. 


QO: GE, H, Be Gots B: Re eae 


Hypnotic STAGE 1: : 

Directions to O: I am going to give you two numbers to add together. 
The first is 147, the second is the number of lines in the paragraph I shall 
give you to read on awakening. You will give the answer as soon as you 
are rehypnotized, raising your hand the moment you begin to think about 
the problem. You will forget everything (E meaning by this, the events 
of Hyp. 1) on awakening. (Directions repeated; then) Do you understand? 
(Affirmative reply.) 


INTERIM STAGE: 

Being asked to recall everything that had happened, O could remember 
only the suggestion of sleep at the induction of hypnosis, and the number 
given to awaken him. (E counted three.) 

E: Put your mind on it. O: I don’t know where to begin to think. 

He was then handed a copy of Aesop’s Fables and told to read aloud a 
designated one of 24 lines, of which one line had but a fraction of a word. 
The reading required that one page be turned. He read rapidly and clearly, 
beginning at once and looking up as soon as he had finished. The volume 
was immediately taken away from him. 


Hypnotic STAGE 2: 

In 50 seconds after rehypnotizing began O raised his hand and said 
169, the correct answer being 171. Though erroneous, this answer seems to 
be so close to the plan already known to E as not to invalidate the experiment. 
The error, as shown below, was in counting the lines, the computation was 
correct. 

E: Why did you raise your hand? O: Because I was told to. 

E: When did you raise it? O: When I thought of the answer. (Accord- 
ing to directions, he was to raise it the moment he began to think about 
the problem.) 2 

E: What were you doing before you thought of the answer? O: Nothing. 

E: What were you thinking? O: Nothing. (In the light of the answer 
to the later question about adding, the two foregoing replies must be held to 
refer to Hyp. 2.) 

E: Where did the answer come from? O: The sum of the two numbers. 

E: What two numbers? O: 147 (correct) and 22 (incorrect). 


SPLITTING THE MIND 103 


E: Where did you get 22? O: It was the number of lines in the paragraph 
I read. 

E: When did you add the two numbers? O: After I had finished reading. 

E: Before you were rehypnotized? O: Yes. 

E: Were you aware, at the time, that you were adding? O: I wasn’t 
thinking about it. 

E: If you had been asked, at the close of the reading, whether you were 
adding anything, what would you have said? O: I would say no. 

E: Why? O: 1 was not thinking of what I was adding. 

Then followed a brief shift in type of questioning, occasioned by a problem 
raised by a fellow student with O in Psychology. He had brought to 
E’s attention a difference of memory between them as to the gown worn 
by a cousin of O on the occasion of a recent visit paid to her by the two 
young men. The friend, who was strongly convinced that he was right, 
wondered whether O, in hypnosis, would likewise have a correct (?) memory 
of the fact. 

E: Do you.recall the colors in your cousin’s dress when you visited her 
at the hospital during the holidays? O: Yes. 

E: What were they? O: Dark blue dress with buff colored girdle and 
intersecting circles all over her dress. 

E: Of what color were the circles? O: Buff. 

At the end of the afternoon when experimenting was ended and O out 
of hypnosis, he was again asked to tell the color of this gown. He replied: 
Medium light blue with very dark blue intersecting rings all over the dress; 
the girdle of buff color. He added that he had had an argument about this 
with the friend mentioned above, the latter maintaining that the rings 
matched the girdle and that the dress was dark blue. Unfortunately the 
record does not state whether this was indeed the friend’s recollection, nor 
what were the actual facts about the gown. There is no doubt, however, 
that O had very different recollections in and out of hypnosis, respectively ; 
and that in both cases he expressed himself with equal promptness and 
apparent conviction; and that, further, according to his own statements, 
his hypnotic memory agreed with his friend, while his waking memory 
disagreed. 

E: What do you think about between your attempts to answer my ques- 
tions? O: I don’t think of anything. 


-—_—— 


Post-HYPNOTIC STAGE: 

O could recall nothing which had happened in hypnosis, but from Int. 
he recalled reading the fable and the number of the page. (This number 
had, however, been mentioned within his hearing in that stage.) He had 
but vague memories of the story of the fable. He thought his mind must 
have been on something else, but he could not remember what? Being told 
to read it aloud again, he did so, no difference in method of reading being 
apparent between the two. “ Yes, I remember it now,” said he. 

E: What were you thinking about during the previous reading? O: I don’t 
know. I must have been reading words without getting the meaning. 

E: How does that happen? O: I don’t know. 

To observe his normal power of recall, E gave him another fable to read 
aloud. Before he had quite finished reading, an interruption occurred in 
the form of an arrival with whom some necessary conversation took place 
in O’s hearing. In spite of this distraction, he repeated the story very 
clearly, showing good recollection. 


104 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


Probative character of this experiment: While reading a text 
in an apparently intelligent manner, O obtained a number accord- 
ing to a plan already known to E. No test was made as to 
whether O had a clear idea of what he was reading though his 
manner of doing it was normal, in contrast with the check experi- 
ments of Part IV; nor as to whether he was aware of getting the — 
desired number—grave omissions, both. Later, he recalled the 
number and when he got it, without having had access, meanwhile, 
to any source of information outside himself. He also reported 
that, in the same Interim Stage, he was adding the numbers with- 
out being aware of it. This introspection, fully indicative of 
co-consciousness, could not, of course, be verified objectively. 

Associative relations among the several stages and subgroups: 
Hyp. 1 is dissociated from the dominant group in Int. but not 
from the (hypothetical) problem-group. It is associated with 
Hyp. 2 but not with Post-hyp. The dissociated groups (if there 
be two) of Int. are reunited in Hyp. 2. In Post-hyp. the dom- 
inant group survives very scantily, and the problem group more 
scantily still—a vague somewhat, if at all. Hyp. 2 is not associated 
with Post-hyp. 

Comments: (1) A little new light is shed on the puzzling 
question of the problem solving function. Subjective evidence is. 
offered that it takes place as a dissociated operation in Int. The 
attempt to use the hand-raising suggestion as a means to determine 
when the computation takes place is again futile, since—as O 
asserts—it is not raised until the answer is ready. This seems 
to be a curious disregard of an hypnotic suggestion. (2) The 
felt emptiness of “ between times” in hypnosis is again evident. 
(3) The contradiction between the hypnotic and the waking 
memories of a given fact is chiefly interesting, perhaps, in its 
indication of a mode for investigating special causes of falsifica- 
tion. E was strangely blind to the possibilities when he si ay 
off his questioning where he did. 


SPLITTING THE MIND 105 


EXPERIMENT O. 
May 18, 1920, 3:15 p.m. 


ee A B Le Old tat > 2 RecipGrss ily kL: 


Hypnotic Stace 1: 

Directions to O: I am going to give you a problem,—to add two numbers. 
The first is 487 (understood by O as 277, if his recollection may be trusted) ; 
the second is the number of words in the first line of the paragraph you 
will read after awakening. You will write the answer automatically, and 
remember nothing of what I have now said. (Directions repeated; then) 
Do you understand? (Affirmative reply.) 


INTERIM STAGE: 

Thinking with obvious effort, O gave a few recollections of the preceding 
stage, some of them incorrect; and finally added: “I can’t seem to think 
very well.” Taking his seat at the table, with a pencil in his screened right 
hand, he was given a particular paragraph to read. There were 8 words 
in the first line. After reading awile (whether vocally or silently, the 
record does not state) he said: “I thought of something, can’t think now.” 

E: What is it? O: I am trying to think. 

E: Of what? O: I don’t know—of nothing (and he continued reading). 

E: Do you recall anything more? O: I just thought of something a 
moment ago—I don’t know. (He complained of being hot.) You told me to 
do something and I turned my head around. No, I can’t remember. 

Meanwhile O wrote 285 once. (This answer is incorrect according to 
the actual data; but according to O’s recollection of the data, as shown 
below, correct.) 


Hypnotic STAGE 2: 

E: Can you tell us what you were trying to remember while sitting in 
the chair? O: (Repeating the last part of the question) To remember 277. 
That was a number you gave me. 

E: What else? O: You wanted me to write something; you wouldn’t 
tell me what it was (correct). 

E: What were you doing, sitting in the chair? O: Reading about the 
grasshopper, the ass, and the donkey (only partly correct and combining two 
fables). I held a book and a pencil. I wrote a number—285 (all correct). 

E: Why? O: There was 277. Write it and add to it the number of words 
in the first line of the paragraph (partly incorrect). 

E: Why didn’t you tell me when you were sitting in the chair? O: I don’t 
remember your asking me. (No specific question put—only general.) 

E: Do you remember writing? O: Yes, now. I didn’t know I was then. 
(His statement on this point below is a little more guarded.) 

E: What were you trying to remember? O: 277 and words in the first 
line. I didn’t know it then, I just found out now. 

E: Did you know you were writing it then? O: Now I do. I didn’t 
remember (i.e., notice?) then whether I was or not, don’t think I do (did?). 

This pretty large emendation is offered, subject to correction. The 
record, without some change, seems meaningless. 

E: How can you remember now and not then? O: (Screwing up his 
face) Just forgot. 

E: Why do you screw up your face so? O: Trying to think. 

E: Are you asleep or awake? O: Don’t know—hands are awfully heavy. 


106 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


E: Why didn’t you tell me about it then? (Reference uncertain.) 
O: Didn’t notice it then. 

E: Why were you so slow in falling asleep the first time (i.e., to-day)? 
O: I couldn’t focus my eyes. 

E: Why so quickly the second time? O: Don’t know. 

E: Are you asleep or awake? QO: Don’t know. I feel both asleep and 
awake. 

E: You can’t recall your name. O: I can think of it, but I can’t say it. 

E: When you say it you are going to stutter. (O accepts the suggestion, 
after his face works and his mouth twitches.) 

Being given the usual suggestion to waken, he does not accept it at 
once, saying that his hand is heavy. The suggestion being repeated in a 
few minutes, he then comes out of hypnosis. 


PosTt-HYPNOTIC STAGE: 
O recalled that he had laughed without being able to stop (otobabte a 
test for depth of hypnosis). He reported nothing else. 


Probative character of this experiment: O gathers information 
and puts it to use according to a plan provided by E, in solving a 
problem and writing the answer. Though it has some effect on 
his dominant state, this state seems to be unaware of the function 
in question and occupied with reading. The objective evidence 
is not adequate for the conclusion that this function was not a 
part of the dominant state, though if, once a part, it was immedi- 
ately forgotten. But later, when recalling, without objective 
assistance, problem and data, and writing the answer, he asserts 
that at the time of performance he had been ignorant of data 
and writing. 

Associative relations among the several stages and subgroups: 
By aid of a suggestion, Hyp. 1 is mostly dissociated from (not 
“known” to) the voice-group of Int., but not from the hand- 
group. It is associated with Hyp. 2, and in small part with Post- 
hyp. The subgroups of Int. are reunited in Hyp. 2 but disappear 
in Post-hyp., as does Hyp. 2 


EXPERIMENT P. 
May 20, 1920, 1:45 p.m. 


OnGyEy Ey Bin TeB Res Wilks 


(The only excuse and explanation E has to offer for his serious blunders 
in method, in this otherwise unusually interesting experiment, is his own 
surprise at the developments. They apparently made him forget his main 
purpose.) 


SPLITTING THE MIND 107 


Hypnotic Stace 1: 

Directions to O: I am going to give you a problem. You will add two 
numbers. The first is 637. The second is the number of pages you will 
have turned over in a book to be given you on waking when I tell you 
to stop turning. You will speak the answer automatically, as soon as you 
solve the problem, without being aware of what you have done. (Directions 
repeated; then) Do you understand? (Affirmative reply.) 


INTERIM STAGE: 

Receiving the book O turns the pages until, when told to stop, he has 
turned 13. He thereupon says 652. (Though incorrect, this answer conforms 
to the plan too well to invalidate the experiment.) 

E: What? O: TI said “The Ox and the Butchers.” (The title of a 
fable was “ The Oxen and the Butchers.” Whether O really had said this 
also does not appear from the record.) 

E: What was it? O: I said “ The Ox and the Butchers.” That was the 
first thing I said. 

E: You are not aware of anything? O: No. (This question, because of 
its connection with the preceding, is not definite enough to cover the counting 
of pages. The omission of a supplementary question was a serious blunder 
in developing the evidence of co-consciousness, so far as the counting-com- 
puting function is concerned. If at the time of the performance he was 
aware of it, with no reservation in the meaning of the term, the hypothesis 
of co-consciousness is unnecessary. ) 

E: Are you asleep or awake? O: Awake. 

E: Do you know the difference in feeling? O: Yes. I felt sleepy on 
first awakening. 

E: When did you stop feeling sleepy? O: I guess it wore off gradually. 
I guess talking made me wake up. 

A test of suggestibility was negative. 

E: What does 13 make you think of? O: Nothing except unlucky number. 
(If he had counted wrong, this number would not have formed a significant 
part of his experience; and the question, in that case, would be of no value.) 

E: Are you telling the truth? O: Certainly. 

E: What does 652 make you think of? O: Nothing special, but it sounds 
familiar; it must have been 652. 

E: What does 833 make you think of? O: Nothing. 

E: Does that seem familiar to you as the other did? O: No. 

E: What can you remember from the hypnosis? O: Nothing. 

E: Would you prefer not to? O: No. 

E: What is the last thing you recall in connection with hypnosis? O: I 
can’t recall anything about hypnosis. 

E: After fixing your eyes for hypnosis what happens (happened?)? O: I 
don’t remember. I don’t feel as though anything had happened—no transi- 
tional period between the two states. 

E: Does 652 seem familiar? O: Sort of familiar. 

E: Does 632 seem familiar? O: Yes. 

E: You don’t know why? O: No. 

E: Does 13 seem familiar and, if so, why? O: Because it is a common 
number. 

Hypnotic Stace 2: 

E: What took place just before you were hypnotized this time? (O gives 

no response even after being urged.) 


108 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


E: What happened when you were hypnotized before? O: (After some 
urging) I don’t know. 

E: Is it hard for you to speak? O: Yes. 

(Bh Why? O: I don’t know. 

E gives suggestions for ease in speaking. Again no answer from O. 

E: What is the trouble? (O is silent.) 

E: Pronounce your name. (No reply.) 

E: What are you sitting on? (No reply.) 

E: Say Bowdoin College. (No reply.) 

E: If you know how to say it, raise your left hand. (No response.) — 

E: If you don’t know how to say it, raise your left hand. (No response.) 

This failure to raise the hand is hard to explain. 

E: What are you thinking about? (No reply.) 

E: Who is writing at the desk? ((No reply.) 

E: Why are you unwilling to speak? (No reply.) 

Tests for motor suggestibility of the limbs are positive. 

E: Where were you at lunch today? (No reply.) 

Happening to notice that O’s right hand showed signs of writing, E sent 
him to the table, where, without verbal suggestion, O wrote his replies to 
the following questions, but maintained his former silence. His writing hand 
was probably screened. 

E: What took place before you were hypnotized last? O: J was turning 
the pages | of a book, and was to add the | number of pages to 637; | and 
the answer is 662 which|I said. And then I talked | with you, but I can’t | 
now. because I said 65 (Here the writing runs off the paper.) 

E: Why can’t you talk to me? O: because I said 652 | Because I can’t say 
the words | now. 

E: Do you know what words are (i.e., mean)? O: Yes! | I can’t think of 
them, or how to say them. (In connection with his other statements, this 
seems to mean that he can’t think words in vocal terms, but only in hand 
terms.) 

E: Can you think of your name? O: Yes. 

E: What is it? (He writes it correctly.) 

E: Do you feel my touch on your hand? O: Yes 3. (Record does not 
show how many times E did touch the hand, nor which hand.) 

E: How can I get you to speak? (O produces meaningless marks.) 

E: Do you want me to waken you? O: Don’t care. 

E: Is this inability to speak like anything else you have ever experienced? 
O: No. 

E: Will you try to remember this experience after you wake up, if I 
ask it?)O:) Ves. 

E: Are you aware of what is going on in the room ante you? O: Yes 
since you asked me. 

E: I want you to try to remember how to say your name. O: Can’t No. 

E: Why? O: I can’t think 

E: Please repeat what you just wrote. O: Can’t think how. 

E: Can’t you talk to me? (O shakes his head.) ' 

E: Would you like to talk to me? (O nods.) 

He is then given a suggestion to remember, on awaking, what has occurred. 

(A serious blunder in this Stage was the failure to ask O whether he was 
aware, at the time, of counting pages in the Interim Stage. This prevents 
the use of the counting-computing function as evidence for co-consciousness; 


SPLITTING THE MIND 109 


the function may have been a part of the dominant consciousness. An 
equally serious omission was the failure to ask O whether, at the time 
of speaking the number, he was aware of so doing. The source of the 
error in the number might also have been discovered, by asking O how 
many pages he counted.) 


Post-HYPNOTIC STAGE: 

E: What can you tell us about what has taken place? O: I have been 
writing answers to your questions, 

E: Why write them? O: Only way to answer them. 

E: Why the only way? O: Because I couldn’t tell you, I had to write it. 

E: Why couldn’t you tell me? O: I sort of lost all sense of talking; 
I didn’t know what it felt like. 

E: Did it disturb you at all? O: Just a little at first. 

E: How did you happen to start writing? O: 1 was writing all the 
time; it seemed the only way. 

E: You did it before I put you at the table? O: Yes. 

E: From the.first question? O: No, I tried to answer the first question 
(1.e., vocally). 

E: How did it feel? O: Felt as though I had forgotten it, and also that 
I didn’t want to say it. 

E: Have you ever had an experience like it before? O: Yes, when 
very sleepy in the morning and some one tries to wake you up and you 
don’t want to speak to them. 

E: Do you recall anything further back than the last hypnosis? O: Yes. 
I remember looking at the pages of a book and giving answer. 

E: Do you recall the number? O: Yes, 652. 

E: Were you aware then of giving the number? O: I don’t remember 
about that, but I recall remembering it. 

E: When did you remember it? O: When you were asking questions 
about it in the second hypnosis. 

E: You don’t recall the original utterance of the answer? O: No. 

E: Do you feel awake or asleep? O: Awake, but sleepy. 

E: As awake as usual on coming out of hypnosis? O: Hard to tell. 

E: Do you feel as you do when you accept my suggestions? O: No, 
not so sleepy. 

E: What did you do with the book? O: I turned the pages. 

E: Doing anything else with it? O: Yes, counting the pages. 

E: Why? O: For the problem. 

E: Did you know you were doing it at the time? O: No, don’t think so 
(important had it been objectively verified). Things that happened then 
do not feel the same. I remember things then, after the first hypnosis, 
as I did during the second hypnosis. The Interim Stage does and doesn’t 
seem different from the second hypnosis. I remember them in the same 
light. I don’t know how to express it exactly—I remember what happened 
the first time (i.e., in Hyp. 1), your giving the problem. 

E: Do you ever remember things that you can’t tell me? O: Yes, 
have an inkling, an idea that I can’t express in words. I sometimes have 
ideas that flash through my mind and I forget them, much less can I say 
them, and these are quite forgotten later on. Some come up later that 
I couldn’t recall at first. 

E: Do you dream much? A: Rarely, or at least, I rarely remember them. 


110 CHARLES T.. BURNETT 


E: You many times tell me you can’t recall. Do you usually in those cases 
have those inklings of which you speak? O: Yes, I think so, usually. 

E: Is it like the feeling of losing a name? O: No, a different experience. 
I don’t remember as much as that. It is hard to explain. 

E: Still more vague than a lost name? O: Yes. 

E: Think of a city of Central America beginning with T. O: I can’t 
recall, but this feels different. 

R asks: What is my sister’s last name? (She is known to O, but has 
been married not long since.) O: I can’t recall. Some (experiences in 
this experiment) seem like this: other attempts would be even less successful. 
This seems like the attempt to remember some of the hypnotic experiences ; 
other attempts yield even less. 

E: Do you still remember the difficulties with speaking? O: Yes, but 
I don’t remember what it was like. 

E: Does it seem like a possible experience? O: It doesn’t seem possible; 
I can’t quite imagine it. 


Probative character of this experiment: O obtains data, per- 
forms problem, and gives the answer orally—all according to a 
plan furnished by E. During this time no dissociation test was 
given; but immediately after speaking the answer O had forgotten 
the utterance and could not recall that any plan had been given 
him. He later recalls the plan, counting the pages, speaking the 
answer, and the answer spoken, without, meanwhile, having had 
access to any source of information outside himself; and he 
thinks that at the time of counting he was unaware of so doing. 

The chief defect in the foregoing evidence is in the Dissociation 
Test. The possibility is not excluded by the objective evidence 
that the plan was carried out in an alternating (rather than co-con- 
scious) state, and straightway forgotten, though the subjective 
evidence, so far as it goes, favors co-consciousness. 

Associative relations among the several stages and subgroups: 
By aid of suggestion, Hyp. 1 is not associated with (‘‘ known”’ 
to) the dominant group of Int., but is to some extent with the 
(hypothetical) vocalized-number group. It is also dissociated 
from Hyp. 2 (unless the first bit of writing be held to imply 
direct association), but associated with Post-hyp., with the aid, 
perhaps, of the suggestion given at the end of Hyp. 2. In Int. 
the vocalized-number group (if it exists) is almost wholly dis- 
sociated from the dominant group; is associated with Hyp. 2 and 
Post-hyp. The dominant group is reunited with the (hypotheti- 
cal) vocalized-number group in Hyp. 2; it is also associated with 


SPLITTING THE MIND 111 


Post-hyp. Hyp. 2, in turn, with the aid of a suggestion to that 
effect, persists in Post-hyp., but begins to fade at the end of the 
experiment. 

Comments: (1) The chief interest of this experiment attaches 
to the dissociation (or, if it be purely physiological, the discon- 
nection) of a small vocal system, in Int.; and the spread of that 
system, in Hyp. 2, to include the entire speech apparatus—not 
merely the actual use of it but what such use felt like. In this 
observer, the hand-verbal system is evidently a completely func- 
tioning one, requiring no cooperation from the voice-verbal one. 
He seems able to think in hand terms; and to do so with ease. 
(2) O declares that he can’t speak because he said 652, that is, 
apparently, because he followed the original suggestion to speak 
and not know it. Reporting on this later, he adds that he had the 
feeling of not wanting to speak. Was this a resistance to auto- 
matic speaking? (3) A feeling of sleepiness apparently accom- 
panies the execution of the suggestion in Int. and disappears 
afterward. (4) O’s failure to raise his hand as a code response 
to a question seems contradictory to the motor suggestibility 
evident a little later. Apparently, too, as the later developments 
showed, there was no failure to understand E’s meaning. It 
remains unexplained. (5) In Post-hyp. O is able to recall from 
‘his past experience analogies to his vocal paralysis; but in the 
preceding Hyp. 2 he cannot. (6) In hypnosis O seems to neglect 
all stimuli that are not specifically brought to his attention by E. 
(7) He is not much disturbed by the vocal paralysis. (8) The 
felt likeness between Int. and Hyp. 2, as well as the fact of felt 
‘difference, is worth noting. (9) Speaking without sole reference 
to this experiment, O implies that there are fluctuations in degree 
of dissociation between simultaneous conscious systems; but these 
visitant “ inklings ”’ seem to be of the vaguest. 


EXPERIMENT Q. 
May 21, 1920, 4 p.m. 


On Bow. L. 1g BOSE BO 2 RiGee iH. 


“Hypnotic STAGE 1: 
Directions to O: I am going to give you a problem to multiply two 
numbers. The first will be the number of letters in the first proper name 


112 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


I utter when you waken; the second will be the number on the left-hand 
page of the book I shall hand you, when I waken you. When you have 
performed the problem, you will speak the answer automatically, without 
remembering what I have told you. (Directions repeated; then) Do you 
understand? (Affirmative reply.) 


INTERIM STAGE: 

Tests for suggestibility are negative. E then says: “George, will you 
give me that book? E hands it to O, open at page 86 (left hand). O turns 
over the pages and says (as R heard it) “416.” (E heard it as 116, changed 
by O from 114, first uttered. The correct answer would be 516.) The 
utterance was in a low voice, but fully vocalized, not whispered. 

E: What? O: I didn’t say anything. 

E: (Persevering) What did you just say? O: Nothing. 

E: What can you recall saying so far? O: I remember saying that I 
didn’t say anything. 

E: Do you remember any titles you Rave just been over (referring to the- 
contents of the book handed to O)? (He recalls some.) 

Tests for suggestibility are negative. 

E: Do you recall anything from the previous state (1.e., Hyp. 1)? O: All 
I remember is a blank. I can’t remember anything. 

E: If I say that you don’t want to remember anything, would that be 
true? O: No. I’d tell you if I could remember. 


Hypnotic STAGE 2: 

E: What were you doing when awake just now? O: Looking at a book; 
talking with you. I gave you the answer to the problem (all correct). 

E: What was it? O: 526. (The correct answer is 516, but the erroneous 
one is too much in accordance with the plan already known to E to invalidate: 
the bd igh Stok 
: How did you get it? (O states the problem correctly.) 

: What was the first proper name I uttered? O: George (correct). 

: How many letters in it? O: Six. 

: What was the number on the page? O: 86 (correct). 

: How did you give me the answer? O: Automatically. 

: In what form? O: I spoke it (correct). 

: What did you reply when I asked you what you said? I told you 
adnit said anything (correct). 

: Was this true? O: It was when I said it. 

: Why? O: I didn’t know I had said anything. 

: How could that be? O: You told me I wouldn’t remember it. 

: Didn’t you notice yourself saying it? O: No. 

: Did you know, at the time, that you were getting the number from: 
George’s name? QO: No. 

E: Did you do the problem as you ordinarily do (i.e., as you would do. 
it outside hypnosis)? O: I think so; I’m not sure. I can’t recall multiplying 
anything. 

: How did you get the answer? O: It just seemed to come to me. 
: Though any particular sense? O: I could see it. 

: How did it look? O: It just flashed across in light letters. 

: Letters or figures? O: Figures. 

: Were you aware at the time of figures flashing across? O: No. 

: Can you recall events of the first hypnotic state? O: Yes. 


bed ted ted td Od tad ted et 


bd os ot ot oo 


SPLITTING THE MIND 113 


E: Do you know what happens to those memories in the Interim Stage? 
O: You told me I’d forget them. 

E: In the Interim Stage are you thinking of my statement? O: I don’t 
know. 

E: Then you may be thinking of it. O: I’m not aware of it. 

E: Then why say you don’t know? O: Well, I’m not aware of it at 
that time. 

E: Then why say you don’t know? O: (Knitting his brows) I can’t 
seem to think. 

E: I want you to remember what you have been saying when you awaken. 
Do you think you can? O: Yes. 


Post-HYPNOTIC STAGE: 

E: Do you remember anything? O: Yes. You asked me what went on 
in the first hypnosis; about the problem you gave me; what I replied to your 
question, “ What did you say?” when I gave the answer to the problem; 
and something about the Interim Stage. You asked me if I was thinking 
in the Interim Stage that you told me I wouldn’t remember; and you asked 
me where the things went to which you told me I’d forget, and if I 
thought in the Interim Stage of the things you’d said I’d forget (all state- 
ments are correct to this point) ; or whether they didn’t occur to me at all 
(not correct). You asked me the number of the page of the book; the 
first proper name you spoke; how I gave the answer (these all correct). 

E: Do you know what those are now? O: Yes (giving them correctly). 

E: How did you give the answer? O: I spoke it automatically (correct). 

E: Do you remember speaking it? O: No, only my answer to your 
questions about it. 

E: Do you remember the events of the Interim Stage? O: (Much 
perplexed) You asked me, at the end, if I recalled any of the names of 
the fables I’d passed over in looking through the book (correct). Nothing 
else... 

E: Do you remember reading a book? O: Yes (but adds); I don’t know 
whether I remember the act itself or what I told you afterwards. 

E: You don’t know, then, what automatic speaking feels like? O: No. 

E: Do you remember telling me you hadn’t said anything? O: I don’t 
think I do. 

Tests of suggestibility are negative. O cannot remember events of Hyp. 1, 
but does remember telling about them in Hyp. 2. 


Probative character of this experiment: O performs the some- 
what complex act of selecting data and computing with them 
according to a plan known independently to E; and immediately 
afterward is unaware that he has done so; recalling it, however, 
later, without access to any source of information outside himself. 
The data available at the time the act was being performed do not, 
however, necessitate the interpretation that there was more than 
one conscious state in operation; but O’s own later introspection 
(of course not objectively verifiable), given in Hyp. 2, implies, 


114 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


if true, the simultaneous existence of two dissociated groups of 
mental states, 7.e., co-consciousness. 

Associative relations among the several stages and subgroups: 
By aid of a suggestion, Hyp. 1 is dissociated from (not “ known” 
to) the dominant group in Int. but not from the (hypothetical ) 


problem group. It is associated with Hyp. 2 but, again, dissoci- 


ated from Post-hyp. The dissociated groups (if there be two) 
of Int. are reunited in Hyp. 2; but in Post-hyp. the (hypothetical ) 
problem group has entirely disappeared and the dominant group 
very nearly. Hyp. 2, with the aid of a suggestion to that effect, 
is associated with Post-hyp. 

Comments: (1) The actual process of the problem solving is, 
again, a puzzle. It leaves no traces available for introspection; 
the results alone are registered, and in the visual field. (2) If one 
accept co-consciousness as demionstrated in this experiment, then 
it has also shown that vocal-kinaesthetic—and possibly vocal- 
kinaesthetic-auditory—sensations may, like the touch-kinaesthetic, 
be split off to join the problem group. If co-consciousness be not 
accepted as the legitimate interpretation of the data, we must 
speak merely of a systematized physiological disconnection. 


PAR TIM 
CHECK EXPERIMENTS MOSTLY WITHOUT HYPNOSIS 


Section 1. To Test ABILity To PERFORM WITTINGLY DiIs- 
CREPANT FUNCTIONS TOGETHER. 
X. WituHout Hypnosis—Exp. 1-6. 


EXPERIMENT X1. 
Jan. 24, 1920. 


OMG, ES: EniCelsh Red 1eD: 


Purpose. To test ability without hypnosis to perform two very different 
tasks together, as a check upon results obtained in hypnosis. 

Test I. Directions to O: Add mentally 61, 28, 49. 

Results (in about 13 seconds): “It’s a hundred and thirty—something. 
I’ve forgotten the last column over” (meaning units column). O could 
visualize the three numbers, set down as for addition. He added the right- 
hand column. Then, on adding the other, he found that he had forgotten the 
units figure of the sum and also the original numbers. He gave up in about 
30 seconds. 

Test II. Directions to O: Write a series of numbers beginning with 7 and 
adding 7 to each preceding number; and at the same time name orally the 
states of the Union. (The writing hand in this and the following experi- 
ments was, of course, concealed from O’s vision.) 

Results: O wrote twenty-one numbers, in which the only errors were that 
the fourth was a repetition of the third, and the sixth of the fifth. Mean- 
while he was giving the states as directed. In comment O stated after writing 
some time that he had never learned 7’s beyond 84; that he thought he had 
written up to hundreds (actually 133); that at the outset the first two or 
three numbers were confused, but afterward, the two tasks were carried on 
together up to 84, the writing being mechanical. After 84 he had to think of 
both along at the same time. 

Test III, Directions to O: Repeat aloud as many stanzas as possible of 
America, while writing the Rime of the Ancient Mariner, Pt. 2 (which O 
said he knew). 

Results: The first stanza of Part 2 was written with the following error 
in the third line: “ Still hid in mist” was given as “ Still in mist in mist.” 
Meanwhile, he was repeating several stanzas of America as directed. 

O commented on the experience as follows: America was not known very 
well. The experience was not at all like automatic writing; then he had not 
been aware of writing; now he was fully aware. He felt himself trying to 
do both tasks at the same time. He could think at times of America to the 
exclusion of the Rime, while still writing, and yet afterward he knew how far 
he had gone in writing. Again, when he stopped to recall America he knew 
where in that poem he had paused. 

O needed considerable prompting after the first stanza of America. When 
unable to go on in oral work he would stop writing. 

115 


116 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


Conclusions: The character of the work done here does not 
seem to be very different objectively from that of the Interim 
Stage in Exp. 1; but the performances in the two cases feel to O 
very different. In the present experiment he feels interference 
and alternation of tasks; in the former he gives no indication of 
such feeling. Here, then, is an important difference between the 
two states. ; 

Criticism: Are the tasks assigned him like, in essentials, those 
assigned in the original experiments, that the present may be a 
check on the former? The essential seems to be that the check 
task should be no more difficult than the original. The proper 
judge is, presumably, the person on whom the check is to be 
made—he to try both without hypnosis. It is of course not pos- 
sible that the identical task should be given for both check and 
original, and in default of a standardized series of tasks equated 
in difficulty the experimenter must take a chance. Here, however, 
is a valid adverse criticism. ; 

How serious is this criticism? This may be gauged by con- 
sidering what this check may be expected, when satisfactory, to 
show that is, that hypnosis introduces some factor essential to the 
successful performance of several divergent tasks together. It 
would not, however, form any link in the proof as to whether, in 
the experiment thus checked, co-conscious states had actually been 
developed. Hence were we to discover, as a result of the ideally 
perfect check experiment, that hypnosis is not necessary to the 
simultaneous performance of highly complicated tasks, the ques- 
tion of fact would not thereby be touched, as to whether the 
performance in hypnosis had really involved co-consciousness, 
This conclusion, rather, would seem to follow, that hypnosis 
not essential to successful performance, was essential to the 
development of co-consciousness. 


EXPERIMENT X2. ; 
Jan. 24, 1920. 


BIEN fag 3 Ee Capen Rev Gee 


A. Purpose. As in Exp. X1, a check upon results in hypnosis. 
Test I. Directions to O: Write your name in full and at the same time 
repeat aloud the first stanza of America. (After this was done the first 


SPLITTING THE MIND 117 


stanza of Bowdoin Beata was substituted for America. The tasks here and 
in II and III below were chosen because familiar to O.) 

In the performance of this task O wrote, at first in an irregular, unformed 
fashion, which, however, improved a little as he went along, the following: 

Josephly (Next come n and w, merged with each other.) 0 o (Writing here 
runs off the paper.) | Badjer jer | Joseph Lynwood Badger. 

Record does not show how well O performed the vocal task. 

Test II. O was told to write the first stanza of America while repeating 
the states of the Union. He produced the following writing: 

My country tis of thee | sweet.— 

Forgetting after he had repeated a few states, how far he had written, he 
gave the task up. 

Test III. O was told to write the table of 5’s, and, at the same time, repeat 
the states of the Union. He wrote the following: 

§ 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 50 | 555 55 60 70 75 80 85 90 95, 10 | 105, 1005 110 
120, 125, 180 130, 140 

O commented on this experience as follows: He executed the task by 
connecting the name of a state with a number. He started the process by 
taking a group of numbers, 5—10—15, etc., and, while holding this in mind, 
repeated the names of states. Sometimes at the end of such a series, he 
forgot the numbers. He also repeated numbers. After he had gone through 
this group, he alternated numbers and states; they seemed to be going on 
together; but the states took the greater effort. Although not thinking of 
the numbers, he knew, after writing them, that they were correct. 


Comments: On the same day an inconclusive experiment was 
made on the development of co-consciousness. This is not else- 
where set forth in the present report. In it automatic writing of 
a largely illegible sort was produced, of which, such as it was, O 
declared that he was unaware at the time and that he could recall 
nothing of its content. This fact is here recorded because of its 
contrast with the results of the present check experiments. 

B. Purpose: To test O's ability to perform outside hypnosis 
simple problems of the sort done by him in hypnosis. 

Method and results: O was told to add mentally 36, 27, 29. 
After a pause he said “ one hundred and—I have forgotten what 
the number was—the second number.” This in 15 seconds. 
Describing this experience, O said that he tried to add the first 
two numbers while they were being given; he had partly suc- 
ceeded when the third was given; whereupon he lost the second 
number. 

Comments on these check experiments: The general picture 
here given, in contrast with those of this same observer in hyp- 
nosis, is one of less efficiency and greater felt effort (see Exp. 11). 


118 CHARLES. .T. BURNETT, 


The record is, to be sure, regrettably incomplete; and the same 
criticism as in Check Exp. 1 arises here: Are the tasks assigned 
in hypnosis comparable to those assigned outside? 


EXPERIMENT Xs3. 
Jan. 31, 1920. 


Osi Ga Ets BiG EB. Ren da 


Purpose. The same as in Exp. X1. 

Method and Results. O was seated at a table with his right hand behind 
a screen, and was told to discuss woman suffrage while, at the same time, 
writing an account of the day’s doings. He wrote as follows: 

I slept until 11.30 this morning | Had lunch 12 this | noon. This afternoon | 
I went down on the | on the mail at 2.30 reat (?) (read?) | 3.00 P.M. Then | 
I want mone (more?) than 

Vocally O gave at the same time a general discussion without much hesi- 
tation. Being told to give arguments against woman suffrage, he complained 
of not being able to do two things at once. He made a great effort, breathing 
hard. This, he said, was harder than the Ancient Mariner (referring to a 
former check experiment). While that was more or less mechanical, he felt 
that now he was doing two things at the same time. The end of the writing 
seems to show considerable interference. 


Conclusions: (1) Outside hypnosis O is not able to perform 
complicated activities with such ease, especially in the matter of 
vocal execution, as in the original series of experiments. He 
appears much more hampered. (2) Success so far as attained 
seems to involve no co-consciousness. 

Criticism: Asin Check Exp. 1. 


EXPERIMENT X4. 
April 15, 1920, 2:40 p.m. 


Or NGe Rey 1D a URE i of Rit} Roe 


Purpose. As in Exp. X1. 

Method. With his hand concealed, O was told to write from memory a 
poem “ Gargoyles” by Amy Lowell, chosen as one he knew well by heart. 
At the same time he was to read aloud from a volume of A*sop’s Fables. 

Results. The following writing was produced: Gargoyles a comedy of 
opposition | Thimble rig on a village | green | Snake charmers under a | bblue 
tent | Winding drugged sausage | bellies thru thin arms. 

The script was more regular and more like O’s ordinary style than were 
his automatic productions. The content shows an entirely successful repro- 
duction, even to capitals at the beginning of each line of the original text. 

While writing O was reading aloud in a manner very different from his 
usual one. He read very jerkily, with slight pauses every two or three 
words; and his voice was monotonous. On finishing, he could remember 
nothing of what he had read, not even the characters in the fable. Describ- 





SPLITTING THE MIND 119 


ing the experience, he said that he had been able to write “by reading and 
thinking in pauses; his attention alternated but thought of writing altogether. 
Said task was made easy by neglecting entirely the reading and pausing 
frequently.” (This description, quoted from the record, leaves something 
to be desired in the way of clearness in details, though its general drift does 
not seem doubtful.) 


Conclusion: In his normal state, O’s ability to perform two 
widely divergent tasks at the same time is far inferior to what 
he can do outside hypnosis with the aid of a previous hypnotic 
suggestion. 

Have we the right to say that there is co-consciousness 
involved? There was a writing consciousness, as shown by O’s 
own later account of that task, but that account shows the possi- 
bility of occasional lapses in this particular mind-group. The 
eye-voice-group was engaged in a task that was also conscious, 
but seemingly devoid of its usual felt meaning, again, with 
apparent lapses in the task. The vividness of the writing-group 
was, in O’s feeling, almost always much greater than was that of 
the eye-voice-group; and proven so by O’s total failure to recall 
the contents of the reading. There was certainly no complete 
dissociation between the two groups. The above mentioned 
“lapses ”’ may, of course, possibly, have been occasional instances 
of co-conscious dissociation, but seem scarcely to require that 
interpretation any more than does the movement of a sleeper’s 
limbs in response to certain stimuli. In the present experiment 
our usual criterion does not require us to assert the presence of 
consciousness. Alternation of vividness between the tasks, with 
an occasional entire lapse of consciousness for one, if not for the 
other also in alternation, seems to be all that we can properly 
assert on this point. 

Comments: How comparable is the double task in this check 
experiment with the double task in the probative experiments ? 
Analysis of the two cases seems to show that in the check we have 
the easier task (reading and writing-from-memory versus conver- 
sation and problem-solution) ; yet the apparently easier is per- 
formed with much greater apparent difficulty. 


120 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


EXPERIMENT XS. 
April 28, 1921, 2:20 p.m. 


O:.G. EFL Ey Cel ab, Rei}. CSG: 


Purpose. As in Exp. X1. 
Directions to O: I shall give you a piece of prose to read. If there be 


more than 19 lines in the selection, add the actual number to 52; if less, — 


subtract the actual number from 52. Keep on reading the next selection, 
giving the answer as soon as possible. 

O was handed a book of AXsop’s Fables open to a selection having 20 lines. 
He proceeded to read in a constrained style, quite other than usual in either 
normal state or interim stage, conveying little connected sense of the meaning 
to an auditor. E found difficulty in understanding, not because the words 
were not clear, but because they were not grouped significantly. He gave 
73 as the answer to the problem, the correct answer being 72. He stated 
later, however, that there were 21 lines, and, on that erroneous count, his 
computation was correct. 

E: What do you recall of what you have read? O: Only something about 
a bramble and a fir tree (in the second selection). 

E: What about the first selection? O: Nothing. 

E: How did you perform the problem? O: By counting lines without 
thinking of the reading and doing problem while reading the second selection. 

E: Can you compare this experience with your experience at the writing 
table, as you reported it on April 26? O: Not the same sort of experience 
at all. 

E: How is that? O: In this case the two processes were alternate; in the 
other the writing did not conflict with what I was saying. 

E: Do you remember the former experience clearly? O: Not very. As 
in so many of these cases, I remember telling about it but not the actual 
process. (O did tell about it. See experiment of April 26.) 


E: Do you recall anything else about it? O: My writing didn’t interfere | 


with my talking. 

E: Do you feel chiefly identified with the writing or the talking part? 
O: With the talking part. (Contradicts a statement made in hypnosis in 
another experiment June 10, 1921.) I remember that a little while. I do not 
remember at this moment the writing at all. 


Conclusion: O's ability to carry on together, in his ordinary 
unified state, two complicated functions is far inferior to this 
ability in his dissociated condition in the Interim Stage, 1.e., out- 
side hypnosis, but with the aid of a previous hypnotic suggestion. 

Comments: (1) The results indicate that the problem solving, 
not the reading, was the vivid part of O’s experience, as shown by 
the mode of vocalizing and the memory for the contents of- the 
selection. (2) O felt a marked difference between his present 
experience and the Interim Stage; and that, in the present case 
in contrast with the former, the functions were not simultaneous. 
(3) He felt that the events of the Interim Stage were less fully 


a 


SPLITTING THE MIND 121 


represented by direct recall than was what he had said about them 
afterward. (4) O felt himself identified with the voice-group 
rather than the hand-group—contrary to his feelings in the 
experiment of June 10, 1921. 


EXPERIMENT Xo. 
May 10, 1921, 3:00 p.m. 


OFF) LB: Rar C. 7, B, Ri Gi EH 


Purpose. As in Exp. X1. 

Directions to O: I am going to give you a problem to solve. Please read 
aloud the fable that I am about to give you. If there are more than 17 lines 
in it, subtract the correct number from 79; if fewer than 17 lines in it, divide 
79 by the correct number. 

The fable contained 20 lines; the correct answer was 59. 

Directly after O had finished reading he said “65—61, I mean”; then, 
still later, “65 was right” (all incorrect). 

E:-What can you recall from your reading? O: I have forgotten the 
name of it. All I can remember is that it had something to do with an animal 
that was besmirching a statue; and that a bird said it would do no good 
(both correct) ; but I have forgotten why. I was busy counting lines. The 
part I do remember was where I got interested in the story and lost track 
of the lines. I had to fish around afterwards to remember the number. I 
was trying to count by tabulating, t.e., adding in my mind one more after 
reading the end of the line; by visualizing the sum at the end of each line in 
the margin. When interested in the story I lost track of counting; when 
counting I lost track of the story. 

E: What do you'mean by “fishing”? O: Trying to recall the total 
already counted. When I turned the page, I saw at a glance how many lines 
were left. So I spent the time subtracting while reading the end of the 
story. There were 13, 14 or 15 lines (really 20)—I don’t remember. 

E: Was the operation easy? O: No, extremely difficult. Before receiving 
the book, I tried to devise some easy method for counting, but without 
success. 


Conclusions: Under the normal conditions of this experiment 
the two tasks are not felt as being performed simultaneously by 
separate functions respectively, each of which is equally vivid. 
They rather alternate in vividness, though perhaps neither quite 
disappears as such. Whatever be their character, they interfere 
with each other, as shown by the errors in one and the scanty 
recall from the other. This is in striking contrast with the find- 
ings in the hypnotic experiment, 1.e., when the discrepant tasks 
were performed outside hypnosis but with a previous hypnotic 
suggestion. 


122 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


Section 1. Y. IN Hypnosts—Exp. 1. 


EXPERIMENT Y1. 
April 15, 1920, 2:50 p.m. 


OO: Git Brie, te Ba Re J, 1238. 


Purpose. To study ability to perform two discrepant tasks at the same 
time, while in hypnosis, for comparison with similar performances outside 
hypnosis, either with a previous suggestion in hypnosis (Exp. A) or without 
it (Exp. X4-5). 

(This experiment followed a similar one performed without hypnosis on 
the same observer. ) 

Directions to O: Being hypnotized, O was told to write a stanza of Amy . 
Lowell’s “Gargoyles” from “ Pictures of the Floating World” (chosen 
because known verbatim by O), and, at the same time, to read aloud from 
7Esop’s Fables. Passages were selected by E that had not previously been 
used in these experiments. The writing hand was concealed. 

Results. O read rapidly in a low voice without great emphasis. The right 
hand, at the same time, produced the following: 


Tree lights . . . drip cockatoos of c..col (Pencil runs off paper.) | 
: Unpon broadest shoulds |... Deread ... ...toa|. 
silver fish | Gluttonous . . . hands... |... . apron stroings ‘And 
. re (Pencil runs off paper.) | red apple . . . Slide under | ice flows and 
waltz'| clear thru)... tothe 1.00% tropics Wok. Bo same Geen 
runs off paper.) | Cocoanuts and. . . caress | . 


The original stanza—the second—runs as follows: 
“Tree lights 

Drip cockatoos of colour 
On broadest shoulders, 
Dead eyes swim.to a silver fish. 
Gluttonous hands tear at apron strings, 
Reach at the red side of an apple, 
Slide under ice-floes, 
And waltz clear through to the tropics 
To sit among cocoanuts 
And caress bulbous negresses 
With loquats in their hair.” 

Most of the dotted parts of the record above are filled in the original script 
with characters that resemble a series of figure 8’s, written in sequence with- 
out lifting the pencil, or, occasionally, occurring singly. They are obviously 
not illegible attempts to write words of the text since they are alike, while 
the omitted words differ among themselves. Sometimes, moreover, they 
occur where no word is omitted. They probably indicate some recurrent 
mental state of another sort, perhaps mere forgetfulness. These same char- 
acters occur not infrequently in the earlier automatic writing of this same 
observer. 

E: What are you reading about? O: A goose and a peacock (correct). 

E: How many fables did you read? O: Three (correct). 

E: What was the goose-and-peacock fable about? O: The goose wanted 
more than his lot (correct). 

E: What was the fable of the mastiff about? O: The mastiff got splashed 
by the goose (really, slapped angrily with her feathers by a pond-side). 

E: What was the meaning of the fable? O: I don’t recall. 


SPLITTING THE MIND 123 


: What are you doing with your right hand? O: Writing. 

: What? O: Second stanza of “Gargoyles” (correct). 

: Were you doing both at the same time? O: Yes. 

: Did the tasks alternate? O: No. 

: Did you understand what you were doing? O: Yes. 

: Was it hard to do? O: (hesitates). 

: Why do you hesitate? O: Because sometimes I wanted to say what I 
was writing and sometimes I wanted to write what I was saying. They 
tended to intermingle. 

E: Are you asleep or awake? O: Neither. 

E: What is your state? O: Hypnosis. 

O was then wakened and asked to recall what he had been doing. He 
replied that he could not. He thought there was something to remember but 
he could not put his mind on it. It seemed to him like the ordinary experi- 
ence of having a name on the tip of the tongue but not being able to get it. 

He was told to put his mind on it. In reply—could remember if he made 
an effort; recalled walking (presumably between the table and easy chair) ; 
other things there but he couldn’t utter them. 

Being asked whose name was next his own on his class list, he replied 
correctly (showing that the power to recall was not in general lacking). He 
was then asked again to tell what he had been doing and assured that he 
could recall. He replied: “ Sitting at the table.” 

E: Go on. O: Reading a book. 

E: What else? O: Writing. 

He said that he could recall no more; that it seemed like a dream, differing 
greatly from usual experience. (This ambiguous statement perhaps means 
the experience of trying to perform discrepant tasks simultaneously, without 
hypnosis.) Being asked how they differed, he replied that one was alternate 
and the other simultaneous. (The record does not state which was which.) 

Describing further his recollection, he said that he had a visual image of 
himself reading and writing; that the book had a red cover and opened 
nearer the back than the front (both correct) ; that he recalled the feeling of 
the pencil, its number and size—No. 6. (This cannot now be verified. In 
any case O presumably saw the pencil before or after the writing.) He could 
not recall the reading part and could not hear himself reading (i.e., had no 
auditory images of it). 


esMesMeoResNeoesies| 


Conclusions: ‘Vhe discrepant tasks were carried on with con- 
siderable success, as shown by a fair reproduction of the selected 
text in writing and by the fluent reading. The amount of the 
latter recalled was, to be sure, slight and not always correct, and 
fable meaning was not remembered, though O professed to have 
understood the reading; but E did not press very hard for details 
while O was in hypnosis. Pressure after hypnosis yielded but 
little and that insignificant, except for the nature of the two 
discrepant tasks. 

Details of the reading were, according to the record, better 
recalled than those of writing, but E did not attempt to get more 
than an identification of the latter during hypnosis. 


124 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


Without much insistence on E’s part, O would have recalled 
considerably less after hypnosis. 

There was found no objective evidence of mutual interference 
between the tasks; O felt, however, that they did interfere some- 
what but did not alternate. There was no evidence for dissocia- 
tion during the performance of the discrepant functions. 

A comparison of these results with those obtained in experi- 
ments without hypnosis and after hypnotic suggestion yields the 
following : 

The reading function was best carried on after hypnotic sug- 
gestion and worst outside hypnosis. 

The writing function was best carried on outside hypnosis and 
worst after hypnotic suggestion. 

In both functions, second best results were yielded in hypnosis. 

The ability to recall the events of the complex performance can- 
not be compared in the three cases as proper tests were not made. 

The honors, thus, for the best combined performance of these 
discrepant functions must go to that carried out in hypnosis, as 
shown in this present experiment. 


Section 2. To Test ABILITY TO PRODUCE AUTOMATIC WRITING 
WITHOUT Hypnosis. Z. Exp. 1-2. 


EXPERIMENT Z1. 
May 10, 1921, 1:45 p.m. 


ODnGata rH: DRC LARy lee Re iba 


Purpose. Automatic writing without hypnosis, sought for comparison. 

Method. O was told to sit at the table where automatic writing in hypnosis 
was usually tested, as the observer knew. He was also told to put his hand 
behind the screen. There his hand touched the pencil and picked it up. 
Nothing was said about the object of the experiment. From a volume by 
J. R. Lowell, “ Latest Literary Essays,’ O was asked to choose the essay that 
he preferred to have read aloud to him by R. During the reading, E sat 
somewhat apart where he could watch O without being conspicuous. Occa- 
sionally he would shift the paper on which O was writing; occasionally, like 
O and R, show by some expression an interest in the reading, especially if 
obliged to shift the paper. He directed the course of the conversation, begun 
when he was satisfied with the amount of writing done. He did not read the 
writing by G. E. H. till that conversation was nearly concluded. 

When J. L. B. in turn became O on the same afternoon (Experiment Z2) 
he, of course, knew what had been going on; he had also read what G. E. H. 
had written; but otherwise the method used with him was that already 
described. . 


SPLITTING THE MIND 125 


G. E. H. selected the essay on the Progress of the World, from which R 
read him four or five pages. At the conclusion of the reading he discussed it, 
remarking that he was chiefly interested in the statement that modern litera- 
ture was the most despondent. Lowell maintained that the progress of litera- 
ture was in the direction of increasing melancholy; whereas, said he, progress 
consisted in building new things on the ruins of old, it is not a statistical 
increase. These, said he, were the things that interested him most in the 
essay. He discussed them intelligently, giving his own views; saying that 
progress would be determined by a comparison of two periods and the 
acknowledgment of a standard. O’s reaction to the reading showed a grap- 
pling with one or two special issues rather than a rehearsal of many details. 
Meanwhile his right hand produced the following: 


portrait of Washington . . . | told by | the | marks on the | paper by the 
marks on the | paper | on the paper | (Reading stopped here.) told by marks | 
on the paper | Portraits of Mme | de | Pompadour . . . | with white and 
gold dress. 


The content af this writing produced without verbal suggestion as to act or 
content, repeats the content of automatic writing produced in a former 
hypnosis, by suggestion, as recorded in Experiment 9 of Part II. It con- 
tinued during both reading and conversation, and stopped when O’s attention 
was called to tests for anaesthesia. 

E: What has been going on while you have been at the table? O: I don’t 
remember doing anything with my hand. 

E: How has your right hand entered into your experience? O: I remem- 
ber picking up pencil but I don’t remember doing anything with it. 

Earlier he had said: “I don’t remember much doing anything with it”; 
and now, spontaneously, “I didn’t think of my right hand until you started 
touching it.” 

E: Which hand did I touch first? O: Left. 

Really it was the right hand and done while O and E were conversing as 
indicated above. Directly after touching the right hand some ten times in 
various places, E asked O to lay his left hand on the table and, closing his 
eyes, to tell E when he felt a touch. So the replies showed that there was 
no anesthesia then, of either hand. Until, however, his attention was called 
to this matter of being touched, in the manner just stated, he was, as it 
appears from the reply last quoted, anesthetic in the writing hand. 

E: Have you ever tried to do automatic writing elsewhere than here? 
O: I am pretty sure I haven't. 

E: Either in hypnosis or out? O: I think neither. 

E: Do you feel fully awake? O: Yes. 

Tests for suggestibility were negative. 

E: How does your general feeling compare with that of the interim stage? 
O: Not like it. 

E: Like it at any time during this experiment? O: No. 

E: How does it (the present state) differ? O: More awake feeling— 
aware of what is going on around and thinking of various things. In the 
interim stage, not aware of what is going on around and not thinking much 
of anything. 

E: How else would you describe the interim stage? O: The combination 
(i.e., of the foregoing traits) makes a dreamy state. It seems unreal when 
you look back on it. 

E: Do you recall what you thought when you first sat down at the table 


126 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


this afternoon? O: The screen with my hand behind it made me think I was 
going to end up by doing some writing. 

E: What attitude did you take toward the writing then? O: I didn’t take 
any attitude; I just thought of it. 

E: Tell me what you wrote. O: I didn’t know I had written till I got a 
glimpse of the paper just now. 

E: Try to recall it. O (After trying for 15 minutes) Said he could recall 
nothing. ; 


(For conclusions see the end of the following experiment. ) 


EXPERIMENT Z2. 
May 10, 1921, 3:15 p.m. 
YA phi MA 8 6 aaa CoM BY IES ee) Ge 


This experiment was immediately preceded, on the same O, by another to 
test his ability to perform two complicated functions at the same time— 
reading connected prose and solving an unrelated problem—without hypnosis. 

The purpose and method are stated in the introduction to Experiment Zl. 

After O had selected the essay on Walton from J. R. Lowell’s “ Latest 
Literary Essays,” R read aloud from it six or seven pages, then, being asked 
what he could recall, O mentioned the following details: biography in 
general talked about; Walton’s life as a special instance, spent by cool 
streams; an unacknowledged quotation from Gray’s Elegy noted by O; a 
poem dedicated to Walton by S. P.; two dedications (in different editions). 
the same except for one word (error) ; Walton’s character known by the age 
of twenty-two (twenty-six to be correct) ; the author’s discourses on names— 
Napoleon, others from the Greek—did not interest O; the name Henry 
occurred often in Walton’s famtily. 

This recollection is reasonably full and largely correct. 

Meanwhile a test for anaesthesia of the right hand was proceeding in the 
method indicated in Z1. Suggestibility was negative. : 

The following writing was produced in a varied, but mostly cramped, style, 
differing thus from the concealed writing he intentionally produced. 

... JL. B. by (2?) th marks by the | by the marks. I knew Roosevelt 
by the marks |J LB. I knew Roosevelt by the marks | Washington |. . . | 
Washington ... I knew Roosevelts | picture by th marks by the | mark 
marks (Here follows a series mostly of x’s) | marks marks | . . . | marks 
marks | (Reading stopped here.) marks marks marks | marks marks a 
By marks |... J (?) L B (with something written on the place of the 
initials that may be “By”) mark mark | marks marks marks mark marks | 
m .. . marks marrks President . . 

Several cases of imperfect letters, especially m’s, occurred in the foregoing, 
just as happens in writing normally produced. There were several cases of 
possible “ house hieroglyphics.” (See record below.) O reverted in choice 
of subject to material given in the automatic writing of an earlier experi- 
ment, just as did G. E. H. Any conclusions to be drawn from the !atter’s 
spontaneous reversion cannot be confirmed by the behavior of J. L. B., since 
he knew what G. E. H. had done. 

E: What has been going on since you sat at the table? O: George has 
been reading; I was listening. My hand, behind the screen picked up the 
pencil and made marks, pictures, etc. I paid no particular attention to 
anything beside the reading. ; 


SPLITTING THE MIND 127 


E: Did you feel any touches? O: Yes, on the left hand. You also touched 
the right hand—the left hand first (last statement incorrect). 

E: Is this state like the interim stage? O: No—guess not. I can’t remem- 
ber the interim stage (laughing a little as he speaks). Interim stages seem 
almost as unreal as hypnosis. Hypnosis seems like sleep, the interim stage 
like a dream. 

E: How does your present state differ from that? O: As far as I can 
remember, the interim stage is a half-awake state, like waking-up in the 
morning—half awake and thinking of things. The present state is fully 
awake. I make an effort to think about things now. 

E: Do you recall anything else (7.e., in the way of a distinguishing differ- 
ence)? QO: No. 

E: What did you have in mind when you sat down at the table? O: I 
was wondering what was going to be read. 

E: Any attitude toward the experiment to be carried on? O: No, I wasn’t 
thinking about it particularly. 

E: Have you ever tried to produce automatic writing elsewhere than here? 
O: No. I often write my name, though, while talking to someone or while 
telephoning—hieroglyphics. Often when taking notes, I stop writing to listen 
to the professor, and when I look down to my notes again, I find that I have 
written two or three lines that didn’t have anything to do with the rest of the 
sentence. I’ve noted this half-a-dozen times—this morning in particular. It 
is often illegible—this morning clear, the words were “ from the.” 

E: Are you aware of having written anything making sense this afternoon? 
O: No. 

E: Aware of doing anything with the pencil? O: Drawing pictures and 
making marks. 

E: What sort of pictures? O: Crosses, geometrical figures and my par- 
ticular hieroglyphic for a house. 

E: Make that hieroglyphic. O: (hesitating) I can’t tell—can’t see it— 
don’t know where to start (half laughing as he speaks). 

E guided O’s concealed hand, without touching it, to a vacant place on the 
paper where O drew the figure. 

E: Have you been making them this afternoon? O: I’ve been starting 
them but probably didn’t finish them. 

E: Write your name. (O does this, in a script larger and more irregular 
than his usual signature, and much larger than the cramped writing auto- 
matically produced.) 

E: Any difference between this and mark-making? O: Yes. This is an 
effort. 

E: What is required to produce this? O: Effort. I tried to imagine what 
the paper would look like, to proportion the letters. 

E: In what sense field were your images? O: Visual. 

E: Please try to recall what you have written (i.e., automatically). O: I 
didn’t know I had written—no place to start with, in remembering. 

E: Think of things as near to it as you can. O: Don’t remember any- 
thing. Might have written “house” because I was drawing a picture of it. 
‘(No indication of it in the record.) 

E: (Showing O the paper containing the writing) Does that recall the 
experience to you? O: No. I remember making those three things at the 
top—that hieroglyphic. 

E: What is that first hieroglyphic? Was it meant to be anything? O: No. 


128 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


Conclusions: (1) Both observers were able to write automati- 
cally without the aid of hypnosis, though neither was aware of 
having developed such a power prior to, or outside the limits of, 
our experiments. One of them, however, had shown some frag- 
mentary writing automatisms. (2) In both observers, the qual- 
ity of the writing content was not unlike that produced by the aid 
of hypnosis. (3) In both, this writing was accompanied by other 
occupations as diverse and complex as in the hypnotic experiments. 
(4) The results from both show that automatic writing can be 
produced when one feels as much awake as usual, and is not 
suggestible either in the writing hand or elsewhere. (5) The 
content of the writing was spontaneous and reproduced that of 
former co-conscious processes (automatic writing). In the case 
of G. E. H., its selection may have been due to place association ; 
beside this possibility, in the case of J. L. B., is the other, that it 
might have been suggested by the known content of G. E. H.’s 
production. (6) It seems, at first, that we have here evidence 
for the existence of co-consciousness in the normal state. The 
evidence, however, does not satisfy the canons we have accepted. 
We may have here no other than a purely physiological process. 
If, on the other hand, its possibility is elsewhere proven, the same 
interpretation may properly apply here; and we then have, in our 
present results, confirmatory evidence. (7) There is, however, 
no evidence here for continuous and persistent dissociation; con- 
ditions prevalent at the time may have caused it. (8) Whatever 
the process be, whether mental or only physiological, it is in some 
way dissociated (or just disconnected), as shown by (a) anaes- 
thesia, (b) O’s ignorance that he is writing, and (c) his ignorance 
of its content. This was shown by both observers. (9) The 
introspective report of the felt difference between the Interim 
Stage and the mental state during the present experiment is signifi- 
cant in the case of G. E. H. No probative value attaches to the 
introspection of J. L. B. since he had heard the other’s account. 


BAW IOC: 
CONCLUSIONS AND COMMENTS 


If the reader has well considered the statement made in connec- 


tion with each experiment as to its probative value, he will 


recognize that a general conclusion must take the form of an 
unnecessary repetition, to the effect that co-consciousness is 
demonstrated as existing in certain normal persons, in hypnosis; 
that, therefore, by the canons of proof laid down at the outset, 
we are justified in abandoning the hypothesis of mere neurone 
systems functioning disjointly. 

The “ intelligent ’’ character of the co-conscious processes con- 
sisted in obtaining new data, performing simple mathematical 
problems, interpreting codes and acting accordingly, and in reveal- 
ing unrecognized bases for choice—all in accordance with plans 
accepted from the experimenter. 

Of the check experiments five out of six show that discrepant 
functions can be performed at the same time more efficiently in 
dissociation than in the normal state. The remaining experiment 
showed no important objective difference in results from those 
obtained in dissociation, but it did show greater felt difficulty of 
function. The check experiment performed wholly within 


‘hypnosis and without dissociation showed simultaneous perform- 


ances superior on the whole to all those obtained under other 
conditions; but this needs a good deal of confirmation. 

Finally, the check experiment on automatic writing shows that 
a good performance can be obtained without the aid of reinforcing 


‘hypnotic suggestion. It confirms in this respect the results 


obtained in Exp. 1, 2, 9, and possibly I. 
Some interesting facts about the structure of mind during the 
state of dissociation have been brought to light. Dissociated, 


‘discrepant systems (functions) are dominated by a unifying idea, 


in part furnished by the hypnotizer, in part a product of the state 
of hypnosis. This dominant idea determines and maintains the 


‘state of dissociation. In this way the efficiency, the fluency, of 


129 


130 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


the several discrepant systems is sustained, as against their usual 
interference with each other. There is great variation in the 
association between Hypnotic Stage 1 and the Interim Stage, on 
the one hand, and either Hypnotic Stage 2 or the Post-hypnotic 
Stage, on the other. Where such association occurs, its extent 
varies considerably. Why the impulse to dissociation—whatever 
that impulse really is—should so vary in efficiency, and what 
actual countervailing impulses, if any, are in operation, alike 
remain a mystery. Of the latter the only ones the experimenter 
has detected as probably operative in the men on whom he tried,. 
either successfully or unsuccessfully, to obtain results, are timid- 
ity, dislike of effort, and dislike of felt confusion among ideas. 
As to effort, it seems that the reinstatement, even in memory, of 
the complex functions of the Interim Stage involves difficulties not 
attaching to the original occurrence, where all operations move on: 
smoothly enough. Functions in hypnosis are felt as effortless 
by comparison, though the act of recalling in hypnosis is not infre- 
quently accompanied by signs of effort. Such evidence as is 
available seems to indicate that this effort is due to some opposing 
impulse, some dislike for the complex dissociated state, which is. 
quite absent (or in turn inhibited?) when that complex state is. 
present. The latter feels confused in retrospect but not when: 
in operation. 

Some facts of interest about the state of hypnosis come into: 
view. Verbal suggestions in hypnosis to remember its events on 
waking are not always necessary to ensure recall, nor at other 
times are they always sufficient. There is, further, in hypnosis 
a lack of curiosity, of shifting interest. Events not connected 
with the dominant idea are noticed but unnoted—are perhaps. 
weakly vivid. There is dulness of expression, even when eyes’ 
are open, that contrasts markedly with the alert glance occurring 
at once upon cessation of hypnosis. Is it like the state when the 
sleepy person has abandoned himself fully to sleep; the «state 
when the eyelids are closed, and the delicious feeling of eyes 
rolled up and out has come on; and yet thinking may be very 
clear, and visual experiences perceptual in distinctness may be 
developed? The observers say sometimes that they are awake, 


SPLITTING THE MIND 131 


sometimes that they are asleep, sometimes that they are in hyp- 
nosis; that they seem floating in space without sense of direction. 
They feel comfortable—more so than in the Interim Stage; they 
“don’t care.” They have delusions of bodily control, which 
change to illusions in the face of the difficulties they meet. “‘ [ 
feel that I could if I wanted to, but I know I can’t.”’ 

The experiments in automatic speech suggest a further line of 
inquiry that may be of value. The amount of such speech was 
indeed very small, yet it was strictly all that the conditions of the 
experiment provided room for. No attempt was made to deter- 
mine how extensive an automatism might in this field be developed 
as a simultaneous dissociated function. The experiments, so far 
as they went, were an attempt to discover whether the voice was 
as available as the hand for the medium of expression of the sub- 
dominant group, that is to say, of the group engaged in expressing 
the dissociated idea, as against the group engaged in adapting to 
the chance occurrences in the environment. The conditions of 
the experiments were not such as to prove the obtained speech to 
be a simultaneous conscious function, rather than purely physio- 
logical. More extended speech would be necessary, that one 
might be sure by the expressions of the dominant group, in turn, 
that it had not momentarily yielded the field; sure also by the 
specific character of the speech that it was being determined, as it 
went on, by assignable psychic activities. The present experi- 
menter regrets that he failed at the critical time to penetrate into 
the meaning of his opportunity and the full demands of the 
problem. 

The results that were obtained showed the fluctuating content 
of mental systems, the preying of one system on another, spon- 
taneously occurring through instinctive impulses, whose force was 
cooperative or competitive with that of the dominant dissociating 
idea. This also may be worth further inquiry. 

The superior efficiency with which simultaneous tasks can be 
carried on by the aid of dissociation leads one to mention a pos- 
sible disadvantage. It is a loss of spontaneity in the scope of 
pertinent ideas available for a given task. This spontaneity is 
limited by the dominant idea, which does not itself yield-——or yield 


132 CHARLES T. BURNETT 


readily—to other ideas of spontaneous origin. The dissociated 
groups may not be able to “ think ”’ as widely each about its task 
as the normally integrated mind. The importance of this limita- 
tion depends upon the amplitude of range provided in the dis- 
sociating idea. Only experiments yet to be made can tell us 
about this. One must also note that the “thinking” of men 
under every-day circumstances is in its turn subject to its own 
group of strictly limiting conditions. No one can “ think about 
anything he wants to”; there are other essential determinants 
beside desire. A little reflection on the hampered, jerky processes 
of one’s deliberate thought is enough for conviction here. 


' Bt 





BF21 .P96 v.34 
The influence of tuition in the 


Princeton Theological Seminary—Speer Library 


UI 


1 1012 00008 5474 




















i t o 4 
fia &R 
‘ i + ‘ yy 
Pia vy i Hote Pe Py 
1 f ) die: t 
( tie ; 
phi ' ‘ j i 
qt ; i 
| ' ‘ ‘ F 
t ; 7 
' ; ‘ 
iy ve y i , 
eb i i 
é ‘ ater) b hedse 
, 4) Sterienid i 
i ti ' t ' 
’ 
j i it 
vel eee f 
awe 
ha 
; i , ' 
bbe 
i { 
} j ; 
A F ‘ 
i here iar ar, j 
t | t 
r H Misbet ri 
1 bevite ti } i ; 
I 
} ' 
‘ ' f { 
i i : i { 
é 
Hi 
jowst t t i , i 
: ' ‘ i 1 
it ta , § ber 
j i th f 
t , eit 
’ Diytt 
‘ 
4 ‘ H 
i ' 
tt boas 
4 He? 


